AStudyofCollectiveEntrepreneurshipUsingAgent-BasedModeling

AThesis

Presentedto

theFacultyoftheGraduateSchool

AttheUniversityofMissouri-Columbia

InPartialFulfillment

oftheRequirementsfortheDegree

MasterofScience

InAgriculturalandAppliedEconomics

By

LUCYMILLS

Dr.RandallWestgren,ThesisSupervisor

May2016

Theundersigned,appointedbytheDeanoftheGraduateSchool,haveexaminedthethesisentitled

ASTUDYOFCOLLECTIVEENTREPRENEURSHIP

USINGAGENT-BASEDMODELINGPresentedbyLUCYMILLS,acandidateforthedegreeofMasterofScience,andherebycertifythat,intheiropinion,thethesisisworthyofacceptance.ProfessorRandallE.Westgren,ExaminingCommitteeChairProfessorFabioChaddadProfessorAndréI.Ariew

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

IwouldliketothankDr.RandallWestgrenforthecountlessafternoonsspentbrainstormingaboutentrepreneurialsuccessandtheontologyofentrepreneurship.ThisencouragementmadealastingimpactontheoutcomeofthispaperandthewayIviewbusinesstransactions.Withoutyourvisionaryperspectiveforthesynergyofagentbasedmodelingineconomicsthispaperwouldnothaveresultedinthedynamicstudyitis.Thankyou.IwouldliketothankDr.VolkerGrimmandDr.StevenRailsbackfortheircomprehensivestudyonAgentBasedModelingbothintheliteratureandduringtheir2014workshop.YourdedicationtotheadvancementofAgentBasedModelingwascriticaltothesuccessofthispaper.IwouldliketothankAniruddhaBelsareforassistingmeinthechallengeofcodinginNetLogo.YourNetLogoexperiencewasinvaluabletomeinthecompletionofthiswork.IwouldliketothankDr.FabioChaddadandDr.AndréI.Ariewforbeingactivemembersofmycommittee.Yourexpertiseprovideduniqueperspectives,thatallowedforthepapertobecompletefrombothaneconomicandphilosophicalperspective.

iii

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................ii

ListofFigures...........................................................................................................................ivListofTables............................................................................................................................iv

Introduction..............................................................................................................................1LiteratureReview....................................................................................................................4AnIntroductiontoCollectiveEntrepreneurship...................................................................4CollectiveActionintheContextofCollectiveEntrepreneurship...............................................4CurrentWorkonCollectiveEntrepreneurship..................................................................................7

MechanismsofGroupFormation..............................................................................................12Theoreticalframework..............................................................................................................................14We-Intentionality.......................................................................................................................................19GroupAgency.................................................................................................................................................37

Agent-basedModelingforSocialSciences..............................................................................40AnAgent-basedModeling(ABM)ApproachtoCollectiveEntrepreneurship...................42

TheModel.................................................................................................................................46ModelLogic.......................................................................................................................................46Bratman............................................................................................................................................................47Gilbert...............................................................................................................................................................49Tuomela............................................................................................................................................................49RealWorld.......................................................................................................................................................52

MechanismsforGroupFormation............................................................................................53Individual-Based..........................................................................................................................................54Group-Based...................................................................................................................................................54

SocialOntologyThroughanAgent-basedModelingPerspective...................................56ODD(Overview,DesignConcepts,Description)ofAgent-basedModel..............59Overview............................................................................................................................................60DesignConcepts..............................................................................................................................70Details.................................................................................................................................................74

ModelResults..........................................................................................................................80Bratman.............................................................................................................................................82Gilbert.................................................................................................................................................83Tuomela.............................................................................................................................................83Real-World........................................................................................................................................84FurtherStudy...................................................................................................................................85

Conclusion................................................................................................................................87

WorksCited.............................................................................................................................90

iv

ListofFiguresFigure1:IllustrationofSearchRadiusinAgent-basedModels...........................................62

Figure2:NetLogohomescreenforallmodelsdepictedinthisthesis……………………80

Figure3:NetLogocompletedmodel...............................................................................................81

Figure4:Real-WorldModelNetLogoRepresentation............................................................86

ListofTablesTable1:SummaryofRuef’sRelationDemographyApproach(2010p.34)..................13

Table2:BratmanAgent-basedModelingResults......................................................................82

Table3:GilbertAgent-basedModelingResults.........................................................................83

Table4:TuomelaAgent-basedModelingResults.....................................................................83

Table5:Real-WorldAgent-basedModelingResults................................................................85

1

IntroductionTheimpactofentrepreneurshipintheUnitedStatesislegendary.Entrepreneurship

makesanimpactpersonally,encouragingbusinessmenandwomenthatsuccessis

possiblewithhardworkandluck.Entrepreneurshipmakesanimpactnationally,

creatingpopiconsthatstandasspokespeopleforthemystiqueofcreativegeniuses

(Reich1987).Although,entrepreneurshipmakessuchalargeimpactonournation

andglobeitstillseemsthatmanypeoplebelieveinthemysterioussuccessofboth

smallentrepreneurialventuresandlargepublicallyofferedentrepreneurial

corporations.Thesuccessisnomystery;itisratheragreatdealofhardworkbya

smallorlargegroupofpeople.Therealityofentrepreneurship,asproven

empiricallybyMartinRuefinTheEntrepreneurialGroup,ispeopleworkinsmall

demographicallysimilargroupsthatareisolatedingeographiclocationsandheld

togetherbystrongcollectivetiesandcollectivegoals(Ruef2010).Themore

accuratestoryoftheentrepreneurisonewhoworkscloselywithasmallintimate

groupof4–5peopletediouslyoveranextendedamountoftimetodream,create,

andproduceinnovation.Thebestwaytostartthestoryofentrepreneurshipisto

startinthebeginning,entrepreneurialgroupformation.

Philosophersandsociologistshavestudiedgroupformationforyearsandtherefore,

theliteraturesarequiteextensive.Groupformationstartswiththestudyofthe

individualandtheirintentiontoact.Methodologicalindividualistsbelievethat

individualshaveintentionsthatarealwaysself-interestedandrational.Their

2

intentionscannotberolleduptoanaggregategroup,andanysocialgroup

formationispresentbecauseoflargepowerfulinstitutionsinplace.Methodological

holistsbelievethatindividualshaveintentionsthatareoftentimesself-interested

andrational.Theirintentionscanberolleduptoanaggregategroupandformsocial

groupsthatprovideutilitytotheindividual.Therearesomemethodologicalholists

thatbelievethatnotonlycanintentionsberolleduptoanaggregategroupbutthat

individualscanhaveintentionsthatonlyexistwithinthecontextofagroup.These

intentionsareoftencalled‘we-intentions’or‘collective-intentions’.When

individualsactingoutofcollectiveintentionalityformgroups,thegroup,asa

representativewholeoftheindividuals,isabletoactwithgroupagency.Group

agencyisaphenomenonthatweseeinentrepreneurship;agroupofpeoplewith

collectiveintentionandcollectiveactionworkingforacollectivegoodareableto

useaspokespersonfortheirentrepreneurialgroup.

InthispaperIusemultiplefieldstostudygroupentrepreneurship:philosophy,

economics,andecology.Thephilosopherscontributetothestudyofthesocial

ontologyofgroups.Theeconomistscontributetheimpactthepeculiarbehaviorsof

entrepreneurshaveonfreemarketeconomics.Theecologistsprovideamethodof

studytomeasureandmonitorinteractionsoftheindividualwiththeenvironment.

Itisthecombinationofallthreefieldsthatallowseachfieldtoagreetogroup

entrepreneurshipisrealinthemostsimplestofterms:peopleworktogether.The

disputeariseswheneachofthefieldscomparetheirassumptionsoftheworldthey

livein.Dependingonthe‘breed’ofphilosopheryoumeet,eithermethodological

3

individualistsormethodologicalholists,theyaremotivatedbytheindividual’sown

agencytoachievegroupaction.Economistsareconvincedthatallindividualsare

rationalandnogroupactionisrational.Theecologistsperceivegroupactionas

natural(asinsocialanimals)andhavedevelopedamethodforstudyingsuchaction.

Canwecombinetheinsightsofphilosophers,economists,andecologisttostudy

groupentrepreneurship?Thatis,canwemodelhowlatententrepreneurssearchthe

economiclandscapeforpartnersintheeconomicfunctionsofnewventure

formation?Thisworkreflectstheworkinthesefieldscompletedtodate.

InthispaperIdefendgroupentrepreneurshipthroughanextensiveliterature

reviewofcollectiveintentionalityandgroupagencyleadingtoanagent-based

modelofgroupformation.Ibelievecollectiveintentionalityisthemotivationfor

theactionofgroupformation.However,becauseofthecomplexityofhumannature

thephilosopherswhostudyintentionalitycannotagreeononedefinition.Michael

Bratman,MargaretGilbert,andRaimoTuomelaallhavedifferentmechanismsfor

howindividualwe-intentionalityleadstogroupagency.Iwillsystematicallybreak

downandcompareallthreetheoriesfinishingmyanalysiswithacomparisonin

agent-basedmodelingusingNetLogo.Agent-basedmodelingallowsforamodel

simulationofgroupbehaviorandemergentphenomenawhileaccountingforthe

differencesinindividuals,localinteractions,andadaptivebehaviorofthe

individuals.Theappealforagent-basedmodelinginthestudyofgroup

entrepreneurshipcomesfromtheabilitytoaccountforlocalinteractionsand

monitorgroupbehaviorsimultaneously.

4

LiteratureReview Areviewofliteratureinsupportoftheagent-basedmodelingofcollective

entrepreneurshipincludesthreemajorareasofpriorstudy:collective

entrepreneurship,groupagencyandintentionality,andagent-basedmodeling.Iwill

discusseachoftheseinturn,drawingimplicationformodeldevelopmentinthe

nextchapter.

AnIntroductiontoCollectiveEntrepreneurshipItisdifficulttofindoneclearandconcisedefinitionofcollectiveentrepreneurship

intheliterature.Ibelievethisisbecausethestrongdefinitionsandongoingdebate

both‘collective’and‘entrepreneurship’bringindependently.Combiningtheoriesof

collectiveactionandentrepreneurshipcancreatestrongpreconceivednotionsasto

who,what,where,when,andhowtheorganizationsandfirmsareformedand

operating.Toclearlydefinecollectiveentrepreneurshipforthecontextofthispaper

Iwilldeveloptheviewof‘collective’asthispaperisconcernedandpresentthe

meaningfulworkdoneoncollectiveentrepreneurshipforthelast20years.

CollectiveActionintheContextofCollectiveEntrepreneurshipOriginallythestudyofcollectiveactionwascenteredoncollectivescreatedforthe

managementofcommonpoolresources.Thisapproachassumesthatallindividuals

arerationalactorsinterestedonlyintheirindividualpayoff,andareonlywillingto

beapartofthecollectivetoreceivethehighestpayoff.MancurOlsoncommentsto

thestrongimplicationsofrationalactionbyindividuals.

“Unlessthenumberofindividualsisquitesmall,orunlessthereiscoercionor

someotherspecialdevicetomakeindividualsactintheircommoninterest,

5

rational,self-interestedindividualswillnotacttoachievetheircommonor

groupinterest”.(Olson,1971p.5-6)

FollowingOlson,ElinorOstrom(1990)describedeight‘specialdevices’toinsure

stabilityofcommonpoolresourceinstitutions;clearlydefinedboundaries,

congruencebetweenappropriationandprovisionrulesandlocalconditions,

collective-choicearrangements,monitoring,graduatedsanctions,conflict-resolution

mechanisms,minimalrecognitionofrightstoorganize,andnestedenterprises.

BasedonOstrom’sworkthestudyofcollectiveactiongrewdramatically.Many

firms,collectivebynatureoftheirbusinessstructures,usedherdesignprinciplesto

studyandencouragethecreationandmanagementofacollectivegood(Zajac

1993).To-dateOstrom’sapproachtocollectiveactionhasbeenusedtoexplain

institutionsgoverningcommonresourcesandlargesocialmovements(Zajac1993).

Traditionally,collectiveactionwasnotappliedtofirmswithinintheprivatesector

becauseoftheabsenceofacommon-poolresourceandthepresenceofaclear-cut

structureinstitutingdifferentmechanismsofmotivationfortheindividuals

involvedinthefirm.However,overtimetheprinciplespresentedbyOstromhave

leakedintothestudyofmanagementoffirms,includingentrepreneurialfirms.

Instead,entrepreneurialfirmsshouldbeconsideredoutsidetheboundsofthestudy

ofcollectiveactionandconsidereditsownuniquefieldofstudywithparticular

‘specialdevices’thatexplainthemotivationforentrepreneursto“haveanactive

interestinrecruitingotherstoworkforthem,asco-founders,employees,investors,

6

advisors,orunpaidhelpers”(Ruef2010p.7)toforma‘socialgroup’pursuinga

collectivegoodforthebettermentofallindividualsinvolved.Collective

entrepreneurshipisthestudyofsucha‘socialgroup’.

Interestsandmotivationsforthestudyofcollectiveentrepreneurshipwilldiffer

basedontheperspectiveofentrepreneurship(Buress2009).HeidiTuominen

(2014)andcolleaguesidentifiedeightmanifestationsofcollective

entrepreneurship:

1. Embeddedinasocialandinstitutionalsceneofmarketandindustryactors

andrelations

2. Applicationofsocialskillstheentrepreneur(singular)usesasthemobilizer

ofactorsorresourcesinnetworkofcollaborativeprocesses

3. Jointactionguidedbysocialvaluesandaimingatcollectiveoutcomes

(especiallyofthoseofco-operatives)

4. Aspecificmodeofgovernanceofco-operativesthatisbasedonjoint

ownershipandcontrol

5. Market-drivenandcontractualcollaborationintheformofthestructureof

multipartyalliances,networks,orverticalintegration

6. Collaborationbetweenemployeesindifferentorganizationshighlighting

occupationalidentityinadvocatingacommoncauses

7. Workandcollaborationamongemployees

7

8. Teamsinestablishedorganizations,andtheestablishmentofteamsin

managingnewbusinessventures.

ForthepurposeofthisthesisIaminterestedinthestudyofnumbereight,the

entrepreneurialgroupasateam.

CurrentWorkonCollectiveEntrepreneurshipMartinRuefisattheforefrontofthestudyofcollectiveentrepreneurshipwitha

teamperspective.InhisbookTheEntrepreneurialGroup,Ruefusesempirical

evidencefromThePanelStudyofEntrepreneurialDynamicsI&IIcovering

datafrom1998–2000and2005–2006toprovidesupportfortheexistence

ofentrepreneurialgroups.Forpurposesofthisliteraturereviewwewill

assumeRuef’sconclusionthatentrepreneurialgroupsexist(bothashigh

growthcompaniesandsmallbusinesses)tobetrueandfocusonstructureof

theentrepreneurialgroups,mostimportantlytherelationshipsandidentities

ofindividualsinvolvedinentrepreneurialgroups.

Theentrepreneurialgroupisnotanewphenomenon.Inthelate1800sMaxWeber

identifiedandstudiedthestartofbusinessgroupsinmedievalcommercial

partnershipinEurope(Weber1958).Weber’sstudywasforconcernofcontrol–

howareindividualsabletogiveupcontroloftheirfirm(profits,benefits,etc.)to

workwithapartner?WeberstartedwiththeRomans.Theytreatedpartnerships

andtheindividualsinthosepartnerships,forconcernoflawenforcement,asonein

thesame.However,astradeincreasedinvolumeanddistance,distinctionsbetween

8

theindividualandbusinesswereneededfortheadvanceoftheenterprise.To

protecttheirfamily’spersonalwealth,separatepartnershipstructureswereusedto

keeptheassetsofthepartnershipandtheindividualseparate.Developmentsin

Germaniclawallowedtheemergenceofjointhouseholds;followedbythecreation

ofsolidaryliability(Weber2003).Jointhouseholdsallowedforindividualstobe

heldresponsibleforthedebtsofotherindividualsunderthesameroof.Solidary

liabilityistheacceptancethatoneindividualcanbeheldresponsibleforthe

partnership’s(orjointhouseholds)debts.Thisexampleisanindicatorofthesocial

powerassociatedwithsuchgroups(Ruef2010).

Overtime,theperceptionofanentrepreneurintheUnitedStatesmorphedtoa

primetimetelevisionstaroraragstorichesstoryfeaturedinthenationalpressfor

thesuccessofcreatingahighgrowthcompany.Whydoweallowthehighprofile

viewsofasmallsegmentofentrepreneurialstoriesinfluencethewaywethink

aboutwhatentrepreneurialsuccesslookslike?Academicliteraturehasalsoplayed

aroleinperceptionofentrepreneurialsuccess;businessmanagementliterature

over-romanticizesentrepreneurshipwhilethesocialscienceperspectiveremoves

thetreesfromtheforestinstudyofentrepreneurialdynamics,studyingdetailsthat

areoftenoutofcontext.Theoverallresultintheliteraturehascreatedadreamy

entrepreneurialexperiencebyhighlyintelligentpeoplewhohavethetraitsand

behaviorsthatproducelargeeconomicgains.Ibelievethataspectsofthetrue

entrepreneurshiphaveyettobeuncoveredbecauseofthecrutchesbusiness

managementandsocialscience,intheirstudyofentrepreneurship,relyupon.

9

Duringthe21stcentury,thefieldsofbusinessmanagementandsocialscience

workedtounderstandandquantifythephenomenonofentrepreneurship.Each

disciplinetookadifferentapproachinunderstandingthenuancesofthe

entrepreneurialgroup.InthefieldofbusinessmanagementRuefreviewed16

empiricalarticlesfrom1990–2007focusingonentrepreneurialgroups(2010,p.

20).Allofthearticlesusedhighgrowthcompanieswithhighcapitalization.Manyof

thecompanieswereinhighprofilefields;includinghealthcare,high-tech,and

academicspin-offs.EighteenpercentofthefirmsstudiedwereFortune500

companies.Theoverallintentofeacharticle(whenconsideredsingularly)was

nevertogiveaskewedpictureofentrepreneurship.However,thelastingeffectof

thearticles,consideredcollectively,portrayshighprofilebusinesseswith

extraordinarysuccess.TherealitiesofentrepreneurshipintheUnitedStatesarenot

asbusinessmanagementliterature,orpopcultureforthatmatter,portrayit.Rather,

themostcommonentrepreneurialventureintheUnitedStatesisbuilding

constructionfollowedbydirectandInternetselling(Ruef2010p23).

Unfortunately,thesocialsciencefieldperspectivedoesnotprovideamoreaccurate

narrativeoftheentrepreneurialventureintheUnitedStates.Ruefexplains:

Whilescholarsintheinterdisciplinaryfieldofbusinessmanagementgenerally

consideramixtureofsocialpsychological,structural,andeconomic

mechanismsdrivinggroupcompositionanditseffectsontheperformanceof

10

startupenterprises,socialscientiststendtoadoptamoremyopicview.

Economistsexplainingthedistributionofownershipandcontrolrightsinnew

businessventuresignoretherelevanteffectsofkinship,ethnicity,orgender.

Sociologistanalyzingtherecruitmentofindividualsintoentrepreneurial

groupsoverlookthetransactionscoststhatmayplacesomeexchangepartners

withinagroupandothersoutsideofitboundaries.”(Ruef2010p.31)

Socialscienceworkstoquantifyabroadergroupofstudythanbusiness

management.Yet,itcontinuestoignoretoomanyvariablestoaccuratelycapture

thetruephenomenonofentrepreneurship.Thestudyofgroupentrepreneurship

requiresadifferentapproacheitherdisciplinecanaccuratelyprovide.

FortunatelyforthestudyofentrepreneurshipMartinRuefisunwillingtoacceptthe

businessmanagementorsocialscienceapproachasthesinglewaytointerpretthe

existenceofsocialgroupsworkingtogetherinentrepreneurship.InsteadRuef

developsa‘relationaldemography’approachtoexplaintherelationshipsand

identitiesthatholdentrepreneurialgroupstogetheroncegroupformationhas

occurred.

1. Ruef’sfirstmechanismisecologicalconstraint.Ecologicalconstraint

acknowledgestheenvironmentproximitywhilealsocapturingallsystems

(contracts,plans,etc.)andresources(availabilityofcriticalinfrastructure)in

the‘environment’thatcansupportorinhibitthesuccessgroup

entrepreneurship.

11

2. Thesecondmechanism,strongties,allowsentranceofthefamilyfirminto

thediscussionofcollectiveentrepreneurship,suggestingthat

‘entrepreneurialgroupsarelimitedbypreexistingsocialnetworks’(Ruef

2010p.25).Thestrengthofsocialtiesallowsforembeddednessofthe

individualsandconsequentlysupportinglong-termgroupsuccess.Although

weaktiesandstructuralholes(Burt,1992)dobringvalueofnew

informationtogroups,theydonotsupportlong-termstabilityof

entrepreneurialgroups(Ruef2010).

3. Ruef’sthirdmechanism,homophilousaffiliation,describessimilar

sociodemographiccharacteristicsbetweenindividuals.Similaritiesinthe

individualsdothreethings;first,encourageindividualstobelievethattheir

commonsocialidentitymeanstheythinkalike(McPhersonetal.2001),

second,disposeeachindividualtohigherlevelsofattractionandtrust

(Booneetal.2004),andthird,insinuatetheexistenceofloyaltyand

ultimatelyhighestpersonalpower(Ruef2010p.36).

4. Ruef’sfinalmechanismisthegoalorientationoftheindividual.Thisisthe

subjectivegoaloftheindividualsandtheirdesiredsuccess.Inthecontextofa

sharedidentity,successisdefinedasultimateidentifyfulfillmentandnot

profits.

12

Table1:SummaryofRuef’sRelationDemographyApproach(2010p.34)

HighVisibility LowerVisibility

Relationship EcologicalConstraint StrongTieConstraint

IdentitiesHomophilous

AffiliationIdentityFulfillment

MechanismsofGroupFormation

Historicallyindividualactionhasbeenthebasisofeconomicresearch,reducing

macro-economicpatternstorationalindividualaction.Thisapproachstudiedthe

economicenvironmentduringasinglesnapshotintimewhiletheeconomywasin

anequilibriumstate.Duringequilibrium,theindividualsarestaticandhaveno

motivationforchange.However,amajorityoftheeconomyoperatesoutsideof

equilibrium(Arthur2013)andthestudyofindividualsoutsidetheboundariesof

equilibriumcannolongerrelyuponstaticmodelsandrationalactortheory.Social

sciencehastheopportunitytoreevaluatethemicro-levelsinsidethelargermacro-

systemtodeducethecorrectunitofstudywhenitcomestoeconomicactivity

throughentrepreneurship.

MartinRuefremindsusthatentrepreneurialgroupsspurmostentrepreneurial

activity(Ruef2010).But,cansocialsciencebebasedongroupactionoronly

individualaction?Thosethatadmittherelevanceofgroupprocessare

13

methodologicalholists.Thosethatrequireanindividualormicro-foundational

approacharemethodologicalindividualists.Thestudyofgroupentrepreneurship

requiresbothanindividualisticandholisticapproach,resultinginahybrid

methodology.Wemuststudytheintentionsoftheindividualstokeepsightofthe

micropicture,whilerememberingthatthegroupsaretheagentsactiveinthemacro

economy.Howeverifwearetomaketheleapfromindividualstogroupswemust

understandgroupformation.Philosophersexplaingroupformationbyanalyzing

theindividualintentionalityofgroupmembers.Onceindividualsbeginworking

togethertheindividualsmaynolongerbeactingonbehalfofthemselvesbutalsoact

fortheothermembersofthegroup,andultimatelythegroupitself.Suchindividuals

arepracticingwe-intentionality.

Thetriggerforgroupofindividualstochangetoagroupisthestudyofagency.The

achievementofgroupagency,viawe-intentionality,isanindicatorforthe

establishmentofcollectiveentrepreneurship.Whenallgroupmembersrecognize

eachother’swe-intention(keyword:recognize)groupagencyoccurs.Groupagency

thenactsasavehicletomovesocialsciencefromthestudyofindividualactionto

thestudyofgroupaction.Thejustificationforgroupactionallowsanew

perspective,outsideofrationalactortheory(closelytiedtomethodological

individualism)tomakeamoreappealingargumentforthestudyofgroup

entrepreneurshipwithinthecontextofstudyingthegroupinitsentirety(include

the‘specialdevices’holdingthegrouptogether),notjustthechosenleaderor

representativeforthegroup.

14

Toclearlyanswerthequestion,ofwhethersocialsciencecanbebasedongroup

actionoronlyindividualaction,Iwillreviewmethodologicalindividualismand

methodologicalholismwhileconstantlyacknowledgingthehybridperspectivethat

actsasthetheoreticalframeworkforthispaper.Then,Iwillprovideanextensive

literaturereviewofwe-intentionality.Finally,tocompletetheargumentIwill

presenttheoriesofgroupagency.

TheoreticalframeworkGroupformationstartswiththestudyoftheindividualandtheirintentiontoact

collectively.Methodologicalindividualistsbelievethatindividualshaveintentions

thatarealwaysself-interestedandrational.Theyalsobelieveintentionscannotbe

combinedtoformagroupaggregate.(Anysocialgroupformationpresentisbecause

pre-existinginstitutions.)Methodologicalholistsbelievethatindividualshave

intentionsthatareoftentimesself-interestedandrational.Contrarytoindividualist,

holists’believeintentionscanbecombinedtoformagroupaggregateultimately

formingsocialgroupsthatprovideutilitytotheindividualgroupmembers.There

aresomemethodologicalholiststhatbelievethatnotonlycanintentionsbe

combinedtoformanaggregategroup,butthatindividualscanhaveintentionsthat

havemeaningonlyingroupaction(Tuomela2013p.15).Thispaperreliesonthe

factthatindividualsexploitutility,value,andworthfromgroupaction,and

thereforerequiretherigorousstudyofgroupagency,formation,andmotivation.

15

MethodologicalIndividualismThestudyofentrepreneurshiphasbeenexaminedwithamethodological

individualismapproach,nearlyalwaysassumingasingleentrepreneur.Joseph

Schumpetersuggestedsuperherolikeabilitiestosingleinnovativeentrepreneurs,

withtraitsof“supernormalqualitiesofintellectandwill”(RainesandLeather2000:

377;Harper2008).MaxWeber,althoughascholarofpartnershipsandgroup

behavior,notedthatasingleindividualisthefirstrepresentativeoftheenterprise.

Furthermore,WeberiscreditedinhisworkProtestantEthicandtheSpiritof

Capitalismfortakingamethodologicalindividualismapproachandtracingthetotal

impactandsuggestedthefuturepowerofentrepreneurialwork,atthemacrolevel,

tooneindividual’sactions(Coleman1986).Intheseexamples,novalueisgivento

therelationshipsconnectingthemicroleveldecisionswiththemacrolevel

outcomes;insteadtheyareremovingtherelationalaspectfromtheeconomical

progressdiscussion.

Thestudyoftheindividualandtheindividual’sactionsineconomicsbeginswiththe

theoryofmethodologicalindividualism.JosephSchumpeterwasthefirsttousethe

phrasein1908;however,hisdefinitionwasmuchdifferentthanthe‘rationalchoice

theory’associatedwithmethodologicalindividualismtoday.IntheValueofSelf,

Schumpeterpresentsamethodthatreducesindividualactiondowntoindividual

intentionsthatareabsentofinfluencesofsocialsystemstoeffectivelyinvestigate

microeconomicactions.Althoughtherewassomeconsiderationontheabsenceof

socialstructureitwasnotamainfocusofSchumpeter’sstudy(Heath2013).

Methodologicalindividualismwasnotagaindiscussedintheliteratureforanother

16

twodecades.FriedrichHayekstatedthatallactionisindividualactionandunderno

influenceatallbyanysocialstructureorinstitutions(Heath2013).Bythetime

Hayekwaswriting,individualismwasadefensivemovetojustifyandexplainsocial

andmacrophenomenonwhilemaintainingthephilosophicalimportanceofthe

individual(Heath2013).Thisdefinition,althoughdefiniteandnotambiguous,has

beenanalyzedandredefinednumeroustimes.AlldefinitionssinceHayek’s

discussionagreethatindividualsarethereasonsforsocialphenomena,howeverthe

disagreementarisesastowhetherrelationsbetweenindividualsshouldbeincluded

inthediscussionofsocialphenomena,suchasgroupaction(Udehn2001).

Wovenintothefabricofhumannatureisadesireandabilitytointeractwithother

humans.Itseemsnearlyimpossibletoseparateindividualsfromtheinfluenceof

theseinteractionsandthesocialstructurehumansthemselvesconstructintheir

dailylives.JosephAgassiwasconvincedthatsocialphenomenaoperateunderthe

influenceofthesocialnormsandconstructsinsociety.Agassisuggestedthatsocial

phenomenaoccurbecauseof‘institutionalisticindividualism”,notmethodological

individualism(Agassi1960).Institutionalisticindividualismacceptstheinfluenceof

thecurrentsocialstructureonindividualsastheyformnewsocialstructureor

phenomena.Thistheoryprovidesthefreedominthetheoryoftheindividualto

accuratelycapturethetruepressuresandinfluencesonindividualsastheir

intentionsmorphintoactions.Incontrast,methodologicalindividualismrequiresa

conceptualframework,whichdoesnotaccountforinindividualaction,to

understandtheworldthatindividualsactin.GeoffreyHodgsoncontinuesthe

17

argumentontheinfluenceoftheexistenceofinstitutions,institutionsassmallas

existingrelationships,inindividualactionwithhis‘folktheorem’ofsocialsituations.

Hodgsonsuggests,“Whenexplanationsarereducedtoindividuals,interactive

relationsbetweenindividualsarealsoalwaysinvolved.”(Hodgson2007)

MethodologicalHolismTheoppositeapproachofmethodologicalindividualismfortheanalysisof

individualandsocialactionismethodologicalholismorcollectivism.Holism

considersthesocialstructuresandinfluencesaroundtheindividualtobeapartof

theindividual.Itgoesfurtherandsuggeststhatallindividualsareinterdependent

uponothersandthesocialstructuresaroundthemcurrentlyandinthepast

(Oyserman2002).Holismproposes,“thegrouporsocietyismetaphysicallyreal–

andtheindividualisamereabstraction,afiction”(Oyserman2002)thatprovides

“…demonstrablyfallaciousinferencesaboutthedynamicsofcollectiveaction”

(Oyserman2002).Incontrasttoindividualismthemeasureofvalue,worth,and

independenceinholismisplacedonthesocialreality(includingsocialinstitutions

inplacethatareinfluencingtheindividual)insteadoftheindividual.Theuseof

holisminrelationtothestudyofhumaninteractioncreatesaninteresting

perspectiveofentrepreneurialgroupformation.Individualismputlittleemphasis

onmotivationsforgroupbehavior.While,holismsupportsgroupagency,itforfeits

groupformationasanemergentqualityofindividualintentions.Oyserman,Coon,

andKemmelneiridentifytwoconsequencesofholismthatdisruptconsiderationof

theindividualintheentrepreneurialgroup;1)groupmembershipisacentralaspect

18

ofidentityand2)valuedpersonaltraitsreflectthegoalsofcollectivism(Oyserman

2002).

HybridApproachtoSocialActionTheoryTherearesomemethodologicalholiststhatbelievethatnotonlycanintentionsbe

combinedintotoanaggregategroupbutthatindividualscanalsohaveintentions

thatonlyhavemeaningingroupaction(Schweikard2013).Theseintentionsare

oftencalled‘we-intentions’or‘collective-intentions’.Whenindividualsactingoutof

collectiveintentionalityformgroups,thegroup,asarepresentativeofitsmembers,

isabletoactwithgroupagency.Itisvaluabletonoticethattoreachgroupagency

theindividualintentionspresentwerenecessarytotheexistenceofgroupagency.

Theindividualactioncannotbeexplainedbyeithermethodologicalindividualismor

methodologicalholism.Individualismdoesnotallowtheexistenceofgroupagency.

Holismwillnotallowindividualstoactontheirownaccordalthoughtheyareapart

ofthegroup.Itisimportantinthestudyofentrepreneurshiptoabandonthetheory

ofmethodologicalindividualismandadoptahybridmethodologicalapproach.

Mypaperisnotthefirstpapertoproposeahybridofmethodologicalindividualism

andholismwhendiscussinggroupagency.RaimoTuomela(2013)cametothesame

conclusion,methodologicalindividualismdoesnotallowforgroupagencybut

holismdoesnotallowforindividualstomakeindividualdecisionsthatresultin

emergentbehavior.Thestudyofentrepreneurialgroupsandtheiremergent

socialityrequiresahybridapproach.IwilluseTuomela’sapproachforthestudyof

groupentrepreneurship:“My(Tuomela)weaklycollectivisticapproachis

19

neverthelessfarfromfull-blownanti-individualism,becauseitdoesnotregard

groupsasintrinsicallyintentionalagents,butrathercharacterizesindividualhuman

beingsastheonlyagentivecausalmotorsinthesocialworld.Inanutshell,groups

accordinglycanactonlythroughtheirmembersactivities”(2013p.13).Tuomelais

anindividualistforagency,yetaholistforintention.

We-IntentionalityIacceptthatneitherindividualsnorgroupshavepreeminentpowerovertheactions

ofindividuals,butrathertheindividual’schoicetoparticipate(forthebettermentof

theindividualandthegroup)ingroupactionisanimportantforce.Thefocusof

studyistheindividual-levelmechanisminplacetojustifygroupformationfromthe

individual’sperspective.Throughtheuseofthoughtexperiments,philosophers

havebeenstudyingthemechanismforindividualactionforcenturies.Forthe

purposeofthispaperIwillstudytheindividualmechanismforgroupformation,

we-intentionality,fromtheperspectiveofsocialontology.Thisprovidesaunique

perspectiveforsocialscientiststodrawconnectionsinamacroeconomythatis

drivenbymicrodecisions.

Regardlessofyourbeliefinmethodologicalindividualismorholism,itisa

commonlyheldviewthatapersonisconsideredanintentionalagent,assuming

individualagency.ForthepurposeofthispaperIwillagreewiththeassessmentof

individualintentionalitythatRaimoTuomelamakesinSocialOntology,

20

“Intentionalitycontainsthefollowingcentralelements:intentionalagentscan

haverepresentationalmentalstatessuchasbeliefs,wants,andintentions,and

theycanalsohaveemotionsandfeelingswiththeirbodilyaccompaniments.On

thegroundofthesekindsofstates,agentsinthefullsensearecapableof

intentionalaction,whichtypicallyisactionforareason.Intentionalhuman

agentsarealsotakentounderstandnormativityandtobecapableofobeying

norms,forexamplesthenormsinvolvedinpromisesandagreementsandthose

involvedincommunallawsandinformalsocialnorms.Accordingly,human

agentsarebothcausallyandmorallyresponsiblefortheirintentionalactions.”

(2013p.21)

Socialontology,orthestudyofshapedmentalstates(i.e.intentionalityandaction)

providesauniquecontrasttoindividualintentionasabasisforgroupformation

discussion.Tousesocialontologytoexplaingroupagencywemustfirstassumetwo

things:1)thatindividualactionthroughgroupbehaviorisanobserverrelative

observationthatiscriticaltoentrepreneurialgroupformationand2)wemustmake

provisionsintheconceptofsocialontologytoaccountforsmallgroupsthatprovide

similarstrengthofidentifyasstronginstitutions(Searle2006).Assumptionnumber

onerecognizesthatrelationshipsbetweenindividualsonlyexistifandonlyifboth

partiesacknowledgetheexistenceoftherelationship.Thisassumptionisnecessary

formostsocialsciencestudies.Assumptionnumbertwostatesthatsocialityand

socialstructures(thestudyofsocialontology)areworthstudying,nomatterthe

size,andoftentimesexhibitsimilarcharacteristicsofpowerfulsocialinstitutions.

21

Throughtheseassumptionsweareabletobegindiscussionaroundthemodesof

action,startingwithcollectiveintention,ofsmallgroupformation.

Collectiveintentionality“isthepowerofmindstobejointlydirectedatobjects,

mattersoffact,stateofaffairs,goalsorvalues”(Schweikard2013)toachievegroup

‘sociality’.Historicallyintentionalityisassociatedwithanindividualanditisnatural

toassumethatcollectiveintentionisthesummationofindividual’sintentionsatthe

aggregatelevel.Thisisnotthecase;collectiveintentionisirreducible(Schweikard

2013).Traditionallyintentionalityisassociatedwithcommitment.Theintentionof

anindividualmorphsintothecommitmentofthesameindividual.Again,itseems

naturaltoassumethatcollectiveintentionbecomesthecommitmentofthegroupas

awholeratherthanthecommitmentofindividualstoonecommoncommitment.

However,incontrasttotheirreducibleassumption,individualsretainownershipof

theirintentionandcommitment,andthereforetheircourseofaction(Schweikard

2013).Thebehaviorobservedbecauseofthecollectiveintentionalityisaresultofa

groupofindividuals,individualcollectiveintention.

Collectiveintention,theoutcomeofwe-intentionality,actsthroughtheindividualin

severalmodes;sharedintention,jointintention,sharedbelief,collectiveacceptance,

andcollectiveemotion(Schweikard2013).

1. Sharedintentionremovesintentionfromtheindividualandplacesin

betweenindividualstoachievecollectivegoals.

22

2. Jointintentionadaptsaviewoftheworldthatallowsforpluralityofagents.

Itassumesacommongroundtofacilitatepotentialcooperationbetween

individuals.

3. Sharedbelief,whichisactivatedbeforeintention,isthecapacitytobelievein

acommonstockofknowledge,orsocialontology,pairedwiththeabilityto

influenceinformationsharedwithotherindividualstohaveapotentialeffect

ofintention,commitment,andaction.

4. Collectiveacceptanceisknowledgeofandthereforeacceptanceofthe

institutionsandsocialnormspresentindailylifethathaveinfluenceonour

actions.

5. Collectiveemotionallowsgroupsofpeopletofeelemotionsintheaggregate

sense,removingthelimitationofemotionfromoneindividualandallowing

groupstofeel,simultaneouslyandeffectivelytogether,asingularemotion.

Thestudyofgroupformationtoformsocialityismostinterestedinshared

intentionandjointintention.Forthepurposeofthisthesiswewillstudythree

mechanismsofcollectiveintentionality,throughthemodeofsharedintentionor

jointintention:MichaelBratman’ssharedintentionandplanningagents,Margaret

Gilbert’spluralsubjectorjointcommitment,andRaimoTuomela’ssharedethos

andwe-intentions.Eachauthorisstrivingtowardthecommongoal“explanations

ofgroupphenomenaorsociality”buteachperspectivediffersfromtheothers.For

thepurposeofthispaperIwillnotbeworkingtochoosethe‘correct’author,rather

23

Iwilluseallthreeperspectivesasalternativeexplanationsofentrepreneurial

behavior.

MichaelBratmanMichaelBratman’sexplanationforgroupactivityisreferredtoassharedagency

(Bratman2013).Bratmanviewsplanningstructuresas‘basictoourindividual

agency’,andusestheexistenceofindividualplanningstructurestodevelopathesis

formodestsocialityviaintentionality.Planningstructurearetheinternalforcesin

placetoexecuteplansofaction(Bratman2013,p.51).Byusingtheplanning

structureBratmandevelopsthesufficientconditionsofintentionalityofsociality,

whilekeepingtheunitofstudyfocusedontheindividual.AccordingtoBratman,

individualsinthesocialgroupmustfollowsixaxiomsandadependencyprincipal

(assumingagentsAandBhaveasharedintentiontodoRifandonlyif):

1. IntentionsonthepartofeachinfavorofactivityR(intentionsconcerning

thejointactivity)

2. AgentAknowsthatagentBhastheintentiontoR(andviceversa)

(Interlockingintentions)

3. BothhaveintentionsinfavorofmeshingsubplanstoachieveR(Intended

andactualmutualresponsivenessandmesh)

4. Beliefaboutthejointefficacyoftherelevantintentions

5. Beliefaboutinterpersonalintention(Interdependenceofintentions)

6. (DependencyPrincipal)AgentAcontinuestointendtoRifandonlyifagent

BcontinuestointendtoR(andviceversa)

24

7. Commonknowledgeof1-5anddependencyprincipal.(Bratman2015,p.85

-86)

8. Theconnectionbetweenthesharedintentionandthejointactioninvolves

publicmutualresponsivenessinsub-intentionsandactionthattracksthe

endintendedbyeachofthejointactivitybywayoftheintentionsofeachin

favorofthejointactivity.(TheBasicThesis)

Iwillreviewsixpointsofhisthesis;planningtheoryofindividualagency,intentions

concerningthejointactivity,interlockingintentions,creationofmasterplan,

interdependenceofintentions,andintendedandactualmutualresponsivenessand

meshing.

Intentionsofindividualsareplanstatesthatguide,coordinate,andorganizethought

andactiontoaccomplishgoalsacrosstimeaswellasatapointintime.Accordingto

Bratman’splanningtheory,theseintentionsareembeddedintheplanningthatis

centralto“internallyorganizedtemporallyextendedagency”ofindividuals

(Bratman2014).Suchagencyispresentatalltimes.Theseintentionsaresubjectto

adherenceofthenormsofintentionalrationalityconsistency(internallyconsistent

andconsistentwithone’sbelief),agglomeration(thesumofthepartsisequaltothe

whole),means-endcoherence(intentionsworkingtowardagoalanddemandan

outcome),andstability(stabilityovertime)(Bratman2014,p.15).Thesenorms

provideastandardexplanationofhowtheplanstates(orintentions)playoutin

25

planningagencyandprovideameasureofsignificanceoftheforcepresentinthe

existenceofnorms.

Foragrouptoexhibitsocialityitmustfirstshareanintention,whichqualifiesunder

planstates,fromthelistednormsabove.Bratman,determinesthat(becauseofthe

planningtheory)eachindividualcanandwillchooseanactivity,ofwhichallgroup

membersagreeupon.Theplanstatethenmorphsfromtheindividualintendingthat

theygoalonetothegroupintendingthattheygotogether(Bratman2014,p.43).It

isanimportantnuanceforthedefenseofjointactivitythattheindividualstogether

intendthattheyXinsteadoftheindividualstogetherintendingtoX.Itisherethat

eachindividualcan‘count’onjointactionand‘neednotanticipateexperiencing,

fromtheperspectiveofhewhoisacting,ourX-ing”(Bratman2014p64).Forthis,

andultimatelyplanningtheory,toholdtruewemustassumethatallofthe

participantsagreeupontheactivityandtheoutcomeofthatactivity.

Forintentionstobeinterlockingtheindividualintentionsmustbeconnectedtothe

jointactivity(agreeduponinnumberonelistedabove),showingasemantic

interconnectionbetweenintentionsinfavorofthejointactivity.Forintentionstobe

interlockingeachindividual’sintentionmustincludereferencestotheintentionof

otherindividualsinthegroupandtheroleoftheirintentioninthejointactionand

viceversa(Bratman2014,p50).However,itcannotbeforgottenthattheintention

itselfistheintentionofanindividual,andthereforethenatureoftheintentionis

itselfreflexiveinthattheindividualintentionisfortheindividualtomeettheirown

26

planforthemselves(Bratman2015,p.52).Theinterlockingandreflexiveproperty

iscontainedin“IintendthatweXandyouintendthatweX”.

Thecreationofa‘masterplan’(AlthoughBratmandoesnotrefertoa‘masterplan’I

believeithelpsillustratehisintendeddescriptionformeshingofsub-plans)through

the‘meshing’togetherofindividualsub-plansisnecessarytoachievetheintended

jointactivity.Allthesub-planstogethermust‘successfullyexecute’thejointaction

oftheindividualsinorderfortheintendedmeshingtobeachieved(Bratman2015

p.53).Theconstructionofsocialityviaamasterplanforthemeansofgroupaction

“canensurethateachiscommittedto,andsoappropriatelyresponsiveto,the

consistent,coherent,andeffectiveinterweavingoftheplanningagencyofone

anotherinawaythattrackstheintendedjointaction”(Bratman2015p.53–54).

Interdependentintentionsareimportantbecauseitisnecessaryforindividualsto

believethattheirpersonalintentioncandeterminewhetherornotthejointaction

occurs.HoweverifIbelievethatwecanachievethejointactiononmyownaccord

(withinthemasterplan)andyoubelievethatwecanachievethejointactionon

yourownaccord,wenegateeachother.Insteadwemustassumethatthereis

interdependencebetweentheindividualactor’sintentions.Interdependencebinds

eachintentionoftheindividualtogethersothateachindividualknowswhetherthe

othercontinuestointendandiftheyhavetheabilitytoadjustthesub-planto

achievethejointaction(Bratman2014p.71).

27

TheoutcomeofBratman’sbasicthesisismodestsociality–orgroupagencyby

individualsworkingwithotherstoachieveindividualgoals.Thisisimportantfor

theoverallgoalofthisthesis,butwillbeaddressedmoreexplicitlyinthenext

sectionofthischapter.Bratman’sthesisdoesprovideastrongcentralroleforthe

intentionsoftheindividuals,whichkeepsahybridtheoreticalapproachtogroup

agency.Bratmanallowsforindividualstoshareintentions,createaplanand

policies(withoutconvergenceinbeliefs),andcompleteajointaction(Bratman

2014,p.156).

MargaretGilbert MargaretGilbert’sjointintentionofgroupsisexplainedasanewrelational

definitionofgroups.Gilbertproposesapluralsubjectapproach,definingintention

aspartofanewbodyofpeoplethatcreatesasingleentity,whereallintentionsare

sharedandthenacteduponbythegroup(Gilbert2014).ContrarytoBratman,

Gilbert’sapproachisnon-reductive;theintentionsaremorerepresentativeofthe

groupasawhole.However,itcouldbeconsideredreductionistthinkingbecauseof

theinabilitytoallowtheemergenceofwe-intentions.(Thisisanimportantaspectto

themodelingofentrepreneurialgroupformation).Gilbertdoessharetheuseof

‘sharedintention’withBratman.Gilbert,contrarytoBratman,allowsshared

intentiontosimplybepresentwhen‘we’isusedtoexplainwhoistodoanactivity,

“weintendtoA”.Gilbert,usingapluralsubjectapproach,proposesconnectionvia

priorcommitment,todriveintention(we-intentionality).Thiscommitmentor

mutualobligationisthegluethatholdstogetherthepluralsubjectsviashared

intention,thecommitmentisadequateinthepresenceofthreecriteria:disjunction,

28

concurrence,andobligation.ItisimportanttonotethatGilbertrequiresaplural

subjectapproach,removingemphasisfromtheindividualsandplacingitongroup

(Gilbert2009).

Thedisjunctioncriterionsuggeststhatpersonalintentionsarenotnecessaryforthe

existenceofsharedintention.Gilbertpresentsherargumenttocreate“individually

necessaryandjointlysufficientconditions”forsharedintention.Inthecaseofthe

disjunctioncriterionshesuggeststhat,unlikeBratman,sharedintentioncanbe

presentbetweenindividualsinthepresenceofonlysharedintentionatthe

aggregatelevel,andnotatthepersonallevel.Gilbertstates,“Whentwoormore

peopleshareanintention,noneofthemneedhaveapersonalcontributory

intention”(Gilbert2009,p.171).Gilbertarguesthatwhensharedintentionis

defendedontheaccountsofcorrelativepersonalintentionsitisdoesnotmeetthe

necessaryconditionofsharedintention,althoughitcouldprovetobesufficient.

Unfortunately,thesufficiencyofpersonalintentionscreateshindranceinthe

creationofnecessaryandsufficientconditionsofsharedintention.

Theconcurrenceconditionsupersedesthesufficiencyofcorrelativepersonal

intentionsinsharedintention,requiringconcurrenceofallpartiesforachangein

thesharedintentionofthegroup.AllofGilbert’sworkassumesthe“we”aredoing

X;thereforetheconcurrenceconditionspeakstotheabilityofthesharedintention

tosurvivetheactionofindividualsandcometofruition.Theconcurrencecondition

statesthatwhenindividualsareinterestedinchangingthesharedintentionall

29

partiesmustagreetothechange,“absentspecialbackgroundunderstandings”.

Gilbertaddsaqualifier(specialbackgrounds)totheconcurrencecondition,

allowingfortheexistenceofprioragreementstothesharedintentionthatcould

ultimatelychangethesharedintentioninthemiddleoftheexecution.The

concurrenceconditionprovidespartialframeworktoreleasepersonalintention

fromthesufficiencyofsharedintentionbecauseoftheinabilitytosimplyrelease

oneselffromthesharedintentionwithouttheconcurrenceoftheothermembers

involvedinthe‘we’action(Gilbert2009p174).

Whatifmembersofthegroupchangetheplansandonememberdisagreesand

rejectsthesharedintention?Theobligationcriterionofsharedintentionrequires

thateachmemberis“obligatedtoeachtoactasappropriatetothesharedintention

inconjunctionwiththerest”(Gilbert2009p.175).Gilbertdiscussesthe‘obligation’

andtherequirementofthatobligation;thispaperisnotconcernedwiththe

argumentofobligationratheronlytheimplication.Gilbertconcludesthat:

“…Onewhohasarighttosomeone’sfutureactionalreadyownsthatactionin

someintuitivesenseof“own”.Untiltheactionisperformedheisowedthat

actionbythepersonconcerned,thusbeinginapositiontodemanditofhim

priortoitsbeingperformedandtorebukehimifitisnotperformed.Ifitis

performed,ithasfinallycomeintothepossessionoftheright-holder,intheonly

waythatitcan.”(Gilbert2009p.176).

30

Theobligationcriterion,Gilbertargues,furtherexplainsthesufficiencyof

correlativepersonalintentionsforsharedintention.

Gilbert’sdefenseofsharedintentionconcludeswithanexplanationofjoint

commitment,inthepresenceofpluralsubjects.Gilbertsuggeststhatshared

intentionisnotthesumofindividualintention,rather“membersofsome

populationPshareanintentiontodoAifandonlyiftheyarejointlycommittedto

intendasabodytodoA”.Itisimportanttounderstandthenuanceof‘jointly

committed’,asitisthedifferentiationofGilbert’stheoryandotherphilosophersof

socialontology.ForGilbert,commitmentdoesnotoccuruntilcommonknowledgeis

heldwithinthegroupandallmembersagree.Eachmembermaybereadyforsucha

commitmentbutindividualcommitmentisneverpresent,ratheronlyjoint

commitment.Thecommitmentoftheindividualtothejointactionmustoccurprior

tothesharedintention(Gilbert2009).

RaimoTuomela BratmanandGilbertcouldnotfindroomforboththeindividual’sintentionandthe

group’sintentioninsideasocialgroup.However,RaimoTuomelajustifiesgroup

actionthroughtheviewofboththeindividual’sintentionalityandthegroup’s

intentionality.Tuomelapresents‘we-mode’and‘I-mode’collectiveintentionalityin

SocialOntology.We-modeandI-modearepresentedastwodifferentmodesto

achievegroupaction,althoughbothmodesproduceadifferenttypeofworking

group,usingdifferentmotivationsandintentions.IwillpresentbothWe-modeand

31

I-modeforreasonofcomparison.However,Iwillonlyfocusonwe-modeforthe

purposeofapplicationinentrepreneurialgroupformationmodeling.

Thetypeofintentiondetermines“thefunctionrolesinthinkingandactinginvirtue

oftheirdifferentsatisfactionconditions,whichalsoentaildifferentcommitments

andactionrecommendations”(Tuomela2013,p.70).Tuomelahasidentifiedthree

typesofImotivatedintentions:I-modeintention(IMI),PrivateI-ModeIntention

(PIMI),&Pro-groupI-mode(PROGIMI).

“(PIMI)AgentAhastheintentionthatPinthepurelyprivateI-modeifand

onlyifAisprivatelycommittedtosatisfyingP(orparticipatinginthe

satisfactionofP)andheintendstosatisfyifonlyforhimselfquaprivateperson.

(IMI)AgentAhastheintentionthatPintheI-modeifandonlyifAisprivately

committedtosatisfyingP(orparticipatinginthesatisfactionofP)andhe

intendstosatisfyP(orparticipateinitssatisfaction)atleastinpartforhimself

quaprivateperson(ratherthanquagroupmembers).

(PROGIMI)AgentAhastheintentionthatPinthepro-groupI–modeingroup

gifandonlyifAisfunctioningquamemberofg(inaweaksense),isprivately

committedtoparticipatinginthesatisfactionofPandintendstodoitinpart

for(themembersof)groupgbutinpartforhimselfquaprivateperson.“

(Tuomela2013p.70).

32

PrivateI-modeintention(PIMI)hasnoneedtobediscussedforthepurposeof

groupagencyandentrepreneurialgroups.I-modeintention(IMI)andPro-groupI-

modeintention(PROGIMI)arebothmeanstogroupformation,althoughboth

entirelydifferentmotivationsthanpresentinwe-modeintentions.IMIfacilitates

groupactioninwherethemembersofthegroupareonlyactingonbehalfoftheir

individualinterest,althoughothermembersmaybenefitfromtheactionofthe

intention.However,PROGIMIdescribesaperson,actingasanindividual(notwith

individualgoalsonly),toachieveasatisfactionthatisdesiredjointlybygroup

members.Thegroupisnotrequiredtohaveagency,orajoint-intentionandthe

individualmayactalonetoachievethesatisfactionthatisdesiredjointlybythe

groupmembers.Itseemsreasonablethatbecauseofthelackofcommitmentfrom

thegroupthattheindividualmustbemotivatedenoughtoachievetheintentionfor

onlythegoodoftheindividual,thereforeitstaysan“I-mode”mechanism.We-mode

musthaveajoint-intentiononbehalfofallmembersinthegroup.Tuomelaas

describesI-modecomparedtowe-mode,“We-thinkinginvolvesthenotionofgroup

viewedfromthe“inside”,fromitsmembers’pointofview,asa“we”forthem.”

(Tuomela2013,p.23).

Tothoroughlypresentwe-modeIwillstepthroughwithcommentaryforeachofthe

10qualifiersofwe-modeintention,drawingcomparisonstoI-modeintentionand

theimplicationsofgroupformationasrelateddirectlytothespecificwe-mode

qualifier.Tuomela’suniquetheoriesresultingfromthebelowlistedqualifiersare

33

groupreason,collectivity,andcollectivecommitmentservingtounifythegroup

around“constitutivegoals,values,andpurposestowhichthegrouplifeis

dedicated”alsoknownassharedethos(Tuomela2013,p15).

1. Intentionalactionrequiresintentiontowardarelevantaction–presentlythe

actionisregardedasagoal,forsimplicity’ssake.

2. Agroupagentgintendstoachieveagoalifandonlyifitsmembers(atleast

theoperativeones)intendjointly,asagroup,toachieveit.

3. Intentioninvolvesatleastinstrumentalcommitment.

4. Ifgroupagentgiscommittedtoanaction-goalX,itsmembersA1,…,Ammust

becollectivelycommittedtoitasagroupaswellastotheirpart

performances.

5. GroupactionXhererequiresthemembers’A1,…,AmparticipationinXin

termsoftheirrespectivepartactionsX1,…,Xm,anditishere(simplifying)

assumedthatthelattereitherfactuallybringaboutorconceptually

constituteX.(Analysisofgroupactionintermsofmembers’actions;recall

(2).)

6. Ifthemembersofghaveintentionallysatisfiedtheirjointintentionby

performingXasagroup,theyhaveactedforagroupreason(viz.,agroup

reasonforthemembers’partperformance),thereasonherebeinggroup

agentsg’shavingtheintentiontobringaboutXorafurthergoaltowhichthe

members’bringingaboutXcontributes.

34

7. Ifthememberscollectivelyactforagroupreasonasagroup,they

necessarilysatisfythecollectivityconditionwithrespecttoXanditsparts:

Necessarilyduetoactingasagroup,ifthegroupreasonissatisfied(fulfilled)

foranyoneofthem,itissatisfied(fulfilled)forallofthemandthegroup.

8. GroupactsintentionallyasagrouptobringaboutX.(Categoricalpremise

instantiatingtheantecedentof(6)and(7).)

9. ThemembersofAactintentionallyasagroupforthatgroupreason,being

collectivelycommittedtodoingso,andsatisfyingthecollectivitycondition

(Form(2)–(8).)

10. ThemembersofAactedcooperativelyinthewe-mode(From(9)andthe

threecentralcriteriaofthewe-mode(viz.,thegroupreason,collectivity,and

collectivecommitmentcriteria.)(Tuomela2013p.35–36)

Anintentionalagentcanonlyconducttheintentionalaction.Intentionalagentshave

representationalmentalstates,emotions,feelings,understandnormativity,andare

capableofobeyingnorms.Theirindividualagencyprovidestheframeworkforeach

individualtoperformintentionalaction,oractionforareasonfortheirownbehalf

(Tuomela2013p.21)Qualifiernumberoneplacesimportanceofbothintentional

actionandthereforetheagentsbeingintentionalagents.Anyindividualworkingto

accomplishanyaction,bothindividualandgroupactionisunderthefirstqualifier.

Howeverinstatementnumbertwoabovethegroupmembersareincorporatedinto

theintentionalaction.ThisdoesnotdistinguishbetweenI-modeandwe-mode

groupaction,ratherindividualactionfromgroupaction.Qualifiernumberthree

35

againdoesnotprovidereasonforseparationfromwe-modeorI-modegroupaction;

insteaditplacesarequirementforcommitmenttobepresentwhenachievingany

typeofintention.Qualifiernumberfourbeginstheseparationofwe-modeandI-

mode.

AsdescribedabovethelargestdifferenceinPro-GroupI-Mode(PROGIMI)andwe-

modeisthegroupmembership.AnindividualfunctioninginPROGIMIisactingasa

privateperson,wherewe-modersemploywe-thinkingandwe-reasoningtoachieve

collectivity.Collectivityisaconditionofwe-modepresentedbyTuomela.Itmakes

‘togetherness’ofagroup(notnecessarilygroupmembershipbutratherknowledge

andacceptanceofgroupmembers)anecessaryconditionforthepresenceofwe-

modegroupaction.Individualsmustcompletetheirresponsibleactiontoachieveto

groupactiontocontinuetoqualifiernumberfive.Iftheactioniscompletethe

remainingqualifiersareinplaceandthereforetheexistenceofcollectivity.Itis

importanttonotethatcollectivity,accordingtoTuomela,onlyrequiresthe

appropriateactionstobecompletedbygroupmembers.Inadditiontocollectivity

Tuomelarequiresthattwoothercriteria:groupreasonandcollectivecommitment

culminatingin‘sharedethos’(Tuomela2013).

Tuomelaisconcernedbythemotivatingfactorstoachievegroupaction.Heplaces

muchtimeexplainingthenuancesofhowindividualscanbemotivatedtowork

together.Hissecondcriteriacontinuesmuchlikecollectivityandisconcernedwith

themotivationoftheindividualonbehalfofthegroup,“We-modeactionisbasedon

36

agroupreasonandisthusperformedforthereasonofpromotingthegroup’s

interest.”(Tuomela2013,p.38).Groupreasonorgroupmotivesisthedrivingforce

behindthedesiredaction.Whenconsideringthe10we-modequalifierslistedabove

groupreasonwasinplaceatnumbertwo.Again,toparticipateingroup-reason,

groupmembershipinnotanecessarycondition(thistimeTuomelasuggeststhat

“wholeheartedidentification”viagroupmembershipshows“genuine”commitment

towe-mode)(Tuomela2013,p.39).

Ifgroupreasonmotivatesindividualstoacttogetherandcollectivityembodiesthe

desiretoacttogether,thencollectivecommitmentistheglue.Collective

commitmentactsthroughjoint-intention.“Groupmembers’jointintentiontoseeto

itthatsomething(groupethos–theaccumulationofgroupreasonandcollectivity)

isorwillbethecaseevenonconceptualgroupsgeneratescollectivecommitment

forthemembertoseetoitthat‘p’”(Tuomela2013,p.45).Allthreecriteriaare

concernedwiththemotivationsontheindividuallevel.BecauseTuomela

distinguishesgroupactionatsuchalevelitistheneasytodeterminewhether

individualsareactioninpro-groupI-modeorwe-modetoachievegroupaction.The

cornerstoneofwe-modeissharedethos.Individualsactingtoachievegroupaction

withoutgroupmotivation,commitment,orintentionindividualsareoperatinginI-

mode,howeverwhenthestrengthofsharedethosispresentitprovidesthe

frameworktomotivateindividualsactinsidethegroupreason,collectivity,and

collectivecommitment.

37

GroupAgencyTheconceptofgroupagencyresembleswe-intentionality,inthatbothare

representativeofagroupofpeopleandtheirinteraction.Groupagencyisspecificto

thegroupinteractionwithitsenvironment.We-intentionalityisspecifictothe

interactionofindividualsthatmakeupthegroup.“Themainargumentfor

employingthemotionofgroupagent(orthatofagroupcapableofaction)isthatit

hasindispensableexplanatory,predictive,anddescriptiveusefulnessfortheorizing

aboutthesocialworld,especiallyinthecaseoflargegroups.“(Tuomela2013,p.

46).AlthoughTuomelacontinuestofocusonthesizeandgroupreasonasfurther

reasonforstudyinggroupagencyhecommunicatesapointthatisimportantforthe

studyofgroupagencyforthesmallentrepreneurialgroup–understandinghow

smallentrepreneurialgroupsinteractwiththeirenvironmentprovidesexplanatory,

predictive,anddescriptiveusefulnessinthestudyofentrepreneurship.

Severaldifferentdoctrinesprevailfortheconditionsofagency.Iwillfocusonone

thesispresentedbyChristianListandPhilipPettitinGroupAgency:Thepossibility,

design,andstatusofcorporateagents.ListandPettitpresentthreefeaturesofan

agent:

1. (Theagent)hasrepresentationalstatesthatdepicthowthingsareinthe

environment

2. (Theagent)hasmotivationalstatesthatspecifyhowitrequiresthingstobe

intheenvironment

38

3. (Theagent)hasthecapacitytoprocessitsrepresentationalandmotivational

states,leadingittointervenesuitablyintheenvironmentwheneverthat

environmentfailstomatchamotivationspecification(List2011p.20-22)

Representationalandmotivationalstatesare,orintentionalstates,are

arrangementsinthepersonalityoftheindividualthatinteractwithotherstatesto

produceaction.Therepresentationalstatesdepicttheworldandthemotivational

statesmotivateaction.ListandPettitarenotconcernedwiththephysicalnatureof

suchstates,onlythatthestateinitiatestheactionoftheagent.Itisthecombination

ofboththerepresentationoftheenvironmentperceivedbytheagentandthe

motivationofagenttochangetheenvironmentthatinitiatesactionbytheagent

(List2011,p.20–22).

Asimpleanalogyofagencyasarobotprovidesanexamplelackingcomplexity.A

robotusesitsrepresentativestatestoobserveanenvironmentandmotivatedby

onedrivingforcechangesitsenvironmentbasedonitsmotivationalstate.Therobot

inthisscenariomayobservemanyenvironmentalchanges,howeverifthechangeis

not‘represented’withinthescopeoftherobotsconcernnoactionwillbetaken.

However,whenthesamethreeconditionsofagencyareappliedtocomplexhuman

beingsanenhancedscopeisrequired.Considertheinverseapproachto

determiningtheintentionalstatesofanagent.Intherobotexampleanobserver

wouldbeabletoidentifyboththerepresentationalandmotivationalstatesofthe

robotsthroughconsiderationofwhatthecuesfortherobottopreformactionare.

39

Addmultipleintentionalstatesandadiverseenvironment;theidentificationof

intentionalstatesthenbecomesdifficulttotheobserver(List2011,p23).Because

theenvironmentandmotivationsofentrepreneurialprojectsaresocomplexforthe

purposeofmodelinggroupagencyviacollectiveintentionalitiscriticaltohavea

strongunderstandingtheontologyinthebackground.

ListandPettitgoontodefendgroupagencywithintheirownframeworkofjoint-

intentionality.Thepurposeofthispaperistoexploredifferentmodesofwe-

intentionality,ordifferentontologicalperspectives.Iwilltakethenecessary

conditionofwe-intentionalitytogroupagencyasproposedbyListandPettitand

testthethreedifferentmechanisms(Bratman,Gilbert,andTuomela)proposed

above.Groupagencyisthefulfillmentofthethreenecessaryconditions,proposed

aboveforindividualagency,onlyappliedtoagroupthatexhibitswe-intentionality

andthereforeindividualswithjointintentiontoaccomplishspecificgoals.

InadditiontoListandPettit,JohnSearlehasanontologicalapproachtogroup

agency.Searleacknowledgestheindividualasmethodologicalindividualismdoes,

andmakestheassumption,asmadebymanysocialscientists,oftheexistenceofa

collectiveworldandallinfluencesofthecollectiveworld(socialnorms,social

structures,etc.)toeffectandbeapartoftheindividual.ThereforeSearlearguesthat

we-intentionsareasortofsocialstructureinplacetomorphandinfluenceI-

intention.NatalieGolddescribesSearle’sapproachtocollectiveintentionswithI-

intentionsbeingthederivativeformofwe-intentionswiththethoughtprocessas

40

follows,“Weintendtowe-intentionbymeI-intention.“(Searle2006).Thismethod

ofdescribinggroupactionsseparateswe-intentionsfromI-intentionsandrequires

theunitofanalysisbedifferentforbothtypesofintentionsduringthestudyof

groupbehavior.(Searle,similartoListandPettit,presentatheoryforwe-

intentions,ofwhichwearenotconcerned.Searle’sapproachrequiresimposition

fromathirdpartyoftheimplementationofwe-intentions.Thispaperisinterested

ingroupformationthatiscreatedfromthemembersandnotdirectedbyaleader.)

Searleextendsindividualintentionalitytoasystemofmultipleagentsworking

underadefinedsocialnormtorepresentcollectiveintentionality,andtherefore

groupagency.Searleconfirmstheneedtoforcollectiveintentionalitytomorphinto

groupagency,althoughhedoesnotspendadequatetimedescribingtheproperties

ofagency.Searledoesgoontosay“…Assignsactionthroughpowers,duties,rights,

andresponsibilities.Collectiveintentionisachievedthroughtheacceptanceof

statusandauthorizationofpower”…evenintheentrepreneurialgroup(Searle

2006).Searlerequiresobligations,rights,andresponsibilitiesforinstitutionstobe

recognized,or‘sociality’toberecognized,or(furtherrefined)thegroupagencyofa

smallentrepreneurialgrouptocometofruitionandthereforecompletegroup

action(Searle2006).

Agent-basedModelingforSocialSciencesIntheliteraturereviewabove,Idescribethesignificantelementsofthecurrent

literatureonsocialontology.Bytakingawe-intentionalityapproachtothestudyof

entrepreneurialgroupformation,Iadaptedindividualismandholismtoahybrid

perspective.Thatviewallowedforconsiderationofphilosophers’takeongroup

41

formationtoachievegroupagency.ToprovetheirtheoriesBratman,Gilbert,and

Tuomelareliedonthoughtexperimentstoprovetheexistence,necessity,and

sufficiencyofallconditions.Suchamethodisnotsufficientforthestudyof

entrepreneurshipineconomics.TraditionaleconomicmethodswouldsuggestI

studyentrepreneurialgroupformationundereconometricsorequilibrium

modeling.However,becauseofmyhybridtheoreticalapproachIamunableto

justifyorsupportsuchamethodology.InsteadIaminterestedinusingamethodof

studythatallowsthemanagementofindividualbehaviorsandtheobservanceof

emergentgroupbehavior.Howcansocialontologybelinkedtothestudyof

collectiveentrepreneurship?Sincegroupagency(action)istheoutcomeof

purposefulgroupintentionality,itisnecessarytohaveamodelingtechniquethat

allowsforthedemonstrationoftheindividualandgroupmentalstatesandtheir

resultantbehaviors.Agent-basedmodelingexplicitlyallowsforthemodelingof

individualbehaviorsandtheinteractionsbetweenindividuals(noteinbiologyABM

iscalledIndividual-basedmodelingorIBM).

Agent-basedmodelingisamodelstructurethatfirst,allowsindividualsandthe

environmenttobegivenspecificindividualtraits;second,allowsthetwotointeract

whilemaintainingindividuality;andfinally,allowsthemodelertoobservethe

changeoftheindividualsandsubsequentemergentgroupbehavior.Theessenceof

theagent-basedmodelingistheabilityforemergenceofgroupandsystemlevel

behaviorsfromtheindividual’sinteractionwiththeenvironment.Thisresearch

usesagent-basedmodeling(ABM)toillustratetherelationshipbetweenindividuals,

42

we-intentionality,andgroupagencyinthefoundingofcollectiveentrepreneurial

ventures(i.e.theaccountsofBratman,Gilbert,andTuomela).TheuseofABMallows

metoexaminetheoutcomesofalternativedecision-makingrulesforindividuals

(multiplephilosopherswithinonemodel)andalternativeinteractionbehaviors

amongindividuals(theprogressionofgroupagencywithinanindividual).Agent-

basedModelingallowsforamodelsimulationofgroupbehaviorandemergent

phenomenawhileaccountingforthedifferencesinindividuals,localinteractions,

andadaptivebehavioroftheindividuals.TheappealforAgent-basedmodelingin

thestudyofgroupentrepreneurshipcomesfromtheabilitytoaccountforlocal

interactionsandmonitorgroupbehaviorsimultaneously.

Thissectionoftheliteraturereviewwillpresenttheuseofagent-basedmodeling

forthestudyofcollectiveentrepreneurship.Thissectionwillmaintainaliterature

reviewapproachandnotdivulgethedetailsofthemodelitself.

AnAgent-basedModeling(ABM)ApproachtoCollectiveEntrepreneurship“Agent-basedmodelsarecomputationalrepresentationsofautonomousagentswho

interactwitheachotheratamicrolevelleadingtobroader-levelpatterns”(Poteeteet

al.2011,p;171).

TheuseofAgent-basedmodeling(ABM)inthestudyofsocialontologyisinits

infancy.ABMiswidelyusedinecologytoday(oftenreferredtoasIndividual-based

modeling,IBM).SimilarlogicusedforthejustificationofABMsinecologycanbe

usedforABMsinsocialontology.

43

“…Inecology,theindividualsarenotatomsbutlivingorganisms.Individual

organismshavepropertiesanatomdoesnothave.Individualsgrowand

develop,changinginmanywaysovertheirlifecycle.Individualsreproduceand

die,typicallypersistingformuchlesstimethatthesystemstowhichthey

belong.Becauseindividualsneedresources,theymodifytheirenvironment,

Individualsdifferfromeachother,evenwithinthesamespecies,andage,so

eachinteractswithitsenvironmentinuniqueways.Mostimportant,

individualsareadaptive:allthatanindividualdoes–grow,develop,acquire

resources,reproduce,interact–dependsonitsinternalandexternal

environments.Individualsorganismsareadaptivebecause,incontrastto

atoms,organismshaveanobjective,whichisthegreatmasterplanoflife:they

mustseekfitness,thatis,attempttopasstheirgenesontofuturegenerations.

Asproductsofevolution,individualshavetraitsallowingthemtoadaptto

changesinthemselvesandtheirenvironmentinwaysthatincreasefitness.”

(Grimm&Railsback,2005p.3)

Socialontologistsagreethatindividualsaredifferent,abletogrowanddevelop,

capableofmodifyingtheirenvironment,andadaptive.Indeed,ecologyandontology

aredifferentperspectivesonbehavior.Iamnotheretocomparethetwo--explicitly

howfitnessofanindividualinasocialgroupcomparestothefitnessofanimals.

However,withoutlittleexplanationitisevidentthatanindividual(inasocialsense)

ismoreconcernedwiththeirlivelihoodthanthelivelihoodofthegroup(Grimm&

44

Railsback2005).Therefore,theindividualwillbeadapting,sensing,andchangingto

theenvironmentitispresented,withtheintentionofsuccess–whetheritbethe

successforthegoodoftheindividualaloneofthesuccessoftheindividualinsidea

socialgroup.Inordertomonitorboththestatusoftheindividualandtheexistence

ofgroupsIneedaresearchmethodthatcanmonitorthe‘interrelationsbetween

individualtraitsandsystemdynamics’(Grimm&Railsback2005,p.4).

ABMsareusedwhenthereisdifferencesinindividuals,localinteractionsare

present,emergentqualitiesareexpected,andindividualsexercisetheirabilityto

makeadaptivedecisions(DeAngelis2005).Thesystemdynamicsofconcernduring

groupformationisthegroupmentalstateandresultantbehavior(groupagency).

Theachievementofgroupagencyistheresultoftheformationofagroup.Once

agencyisformedthemodelisover,asimplecountingofgroupsissufficientto

measuretheactivitythatoccurred.However,becauseofABMwehaveanadditional

leverthatallowsthemonitoringoftheformationprocessforeachindividual.

Althoughtheresultantbehavioristhetriggerofcompletionofthepurposeofthis

study,withouttheabilitytoanalysistheindividualstheresearchislacking.This

studythenisabletodefendthefourqualifiersforABM(differencesinindividuals,

localinteractions,emergentqualities,andindividualexercisingtheirabilitytomake

adaptivedecisions).Socialontologysupportsthatindividualsaredifferent.Local

interactionsarepresentofindividualsarepresentduringthegroupformation

process.Emergentqualitiesareexpectedtoarisefromgroupagency.Individuals

45

exercisetheirabilitytomakeadaptivedecisionstodeterminetheirstatusofgroup

agency.

46

TheModelItisthepurposeofthissectiontodescribetheconceptualframeworksforcreation

of,anddetailthelogicbehind,fourworkingmodels;eachdesignedtoincrease

understandingofthesocialontologypresentinsmallentrepreneurialgroup

formation.ThissectionisnottheODD(astrictprotocolrequiredforAgent-based

Modeling),butrathersupplementalinformationtomakecleartheabilityAgent-

basedmodelinghastotestandanalyzesocialontologicalpuzzles.First,Iwillstep

througheachmodel’slogic,citingtheliteraturereview.Second,Iwillelaborateon

thetwomechanismsforgroupformationthatdominate:individualbasedandgroup

based,andtheimpactthathasonmodeling.Finally,Iwillemphasizetheunique

perspectivecreatedbyviewingsocialontologythroughAgent-basedmodeling.

ModelLogicThemodelspresentedrepresentanontologicalapproachtobetterunderstanding

entrepreneurialgroups.AlthoughBratman,Gilbert,andTuomelagivelittleconcern

tothetypeofpeopleactingingroupformation,thestudyofentrepreneurialgroups

placesgreatweightonthispoint.Themembersofanentrepreneurialgroupcannot

behomophilousforthesuccessofthegroup,ratheritisimportanttohavedifferent

rolesandattributesrepresented.FritzRedlichseparatesactiverolesin

entrepreneurialgroupsintotheinnovator,capitalist,andmanager.Theinnovator,

inthemosttraditionalsense,isthe‘entrepreneur’orthe‘dreamer’.Thecapitalist,

bringsthemoneyandknow-howtofinancetheproject.Themanagerdoesallthe

harddirtyworkofdetailstobringtofruitionthedreamersdreams(Redlich1951).

Insomereal-lifecircumstancesthisapproachwillnotfit,rolesmaybecombined

47

intoonepersonandadditionalrolesfilledthroughotherpeople.However,the

exerciseismoreforthebenefitofaddingdiversitytotherequiredmixofan

entrepreneurialgroup,nottherolestheyareconsideredtobeforthisstudy.

Although,theformationmechanismproposedbyeachsocialontologistisdistinctly

different,theinnerworkingsofthecodesoperatequitesimilarly.Whengroup

formationisachieveditisnotofmodelimportanceastowhetheranindividuallead

thegroupdesignorthegrouppresenceforcedthegroupdesign,andthereforeeach

modeloperatesquitesimilarly.Imentionthesespecificsasapre-cursortothe

presentationofthemodeltoprovidethecorrectlensestoviewthemodellogic.

Bratman

Bratmanviewsplanningstructuresas‘basictoourindividualagency’,andusesthe

existenceofindividualplanningstructurestodevelopathesisformodestsociality

viaintentionality.Planningstructurearetheinternalforcesinplacetoexecuteplans

ofaction(Bratman2013,p.51).AccordingtoBratman,individualsinthesocial

groupmustfollowsixaxiomsandadependencyprincipal(assumingagentsAandB

haveasharedintentiontodoRifandonlyif):

1. IntentionsonthepartofeachinfavorofactivityR.(intentionsconcerning

thejointactivity)

2. AgentAknowsthatagentBhastheintentiontoR(andviceversa).

(Interlockingintentions)

48

3. BothhaveintentionsinfavorofmeshingsubplanstoachieveR.(Intended

andactualmutualresponsivenessandmesh)

4. Beliefaboutthejointefficacyoftherelevantintentions

5. Beliefaboutinterpersonalintention(Interdependenceofintentions)

6. (DependencyPrincipal)AgentAcontinuestointendtoRifandonlyifagent

BcontinuestointendtoR(andviceversa)

7. Commonknowledgeof1-5anddependencyprincipal.(Bratman2015,p.85

-86)

8. Theconnectionbetweenthesharedintentionandthejointactioninvolves

publicmutualresponsivenessinsub-intentionsandactionthattracksthe

endintendedbyeachofthejointactivitybywayoftheintentionsofeachin

favorofthejointactivity.(TheBasicThesis)

Foragrouptoexhibitsocialityitmustfirstshareanintention.Bratman,determines

that(becauseoftheplanningtheory)eachindividualcanandwillchooseanactivity,

ofwhichallgroupmembersagreeupon.Theplanstatethenmorphsfromthe

individualintendingthattheygoalonetothegroupintendingthattheygotogether

(Bratman2014,p43).Thecreationofa‘masterplan’throughthe‘meshing’together

ofindividualsub-plansissufficienttoachievetheintendedjointactivity.Allthesub-

planstogethermust‘successfullyexecute’thejointactionoftheindividualsinorder

fortheintendedmeshingtobeachieved(Bratman2015,p.53).Theoutcomeof

Bratman’sbasicthesisismodestsociality–orgroupagency.Inthemodelingfor

Bratmangroupformation,formationbeginswhenagentsunitebasedonintentions,

49

agentscanonlylinkwithagentsthatarenotlikethemin‘entrepreneurialrole’.If

eachoftheagentshasthesametypeofintentionthentheagentsbeginto‘mesh’

theirsub-plans.Iftheincorrecttypeofmeshingoccursthegroupdissolves.The

formationofthe‘masterplan’istheindicationofgroupagency.

GilbertInMargaretGilbert’sontologyofgroupssheusesapluralsubjectapproachto

proposeconnectionviapriorcommitment,todrivewe-intentionality.This

commitmentormutualobligationisthegluethatholdstogetherthepluralsubjects

viasharedintention.Thecommitmentpresentisadequateinthepresenceofthree

criteria:disjunction,concurrence,andobligation(Gilbert2009).Thetwokeyfactors

inrepresentingGilbert’sapproacharecommitmentandintention.InGilbert’s

literaturesheproposesthatpriorcommitmentispresentfirst,beforeintention.Itis

theobligationimposedbythecommitmentthatforcesconcurrenceontheintention

tobecompleted.InthemodelingofGilbertgroupformation,formationbeginswhen

agentsunitebasedonpriorcommitmentsinplace,agentscanonlylinkwithagents

thatarenotlikethem(addingdiversitytotheentrepreneurialgroup).Thegroup

thenbringsintentiontoaconsensus.Thesignofintentionthentriggersgroup

agency.

TuomelaBratmanandGilbertcouldnotfindroomforboththeindividual’sintentionandthe

group’sintentioninsideasocialgroup.However,RaimoTuomelacanonlyjustify

groupactionthroughtheviewofboththeindividual’sintentionalityandthegroup’s

intentionality.Tuomela’suniquetheoriesresultingfromthebelowlistedqualifiers

50

aregroupreason,collectivity,andcollectivecommitmentservingtounifythegroup

around“constitutivegoals,values,andpurposestowhichthegrouplifeis

dedicated”alsoknownassharedethos(Tuomela2013,p15).

1. Intentionalactionrequiresintentiontowardarelevantaction–presentlythe

actionisregardedasagoal,forsimplicity’ssake.

2. Agroupagentgintendstoachieveagoalifandonlyifitsmembers(atleast

theoperativeones)intendjointly,asagroup,toachieveit.

3. Intentioninvolvesatleastinstrumentalcommitment.

4. Ifgroupagentgiscommittedtoanaction-goalX,itsmembersA1,…,Ammust

becollectivelycommittedtoitasagroupaswellastotheirpart

performances.

5. GroupactionXhererequiresthemembers’A1,…,AmparticipationinXin

termsoftheirrespectivepartactionsX1,…,Xm,anditishere(simplifying)

assumedthatthelattereitherfactuallybringaboutorconceptually

constituteX.(Analysisofgroupactionintermsofmembers’actions;recall

(2).)

6. Ifthemembersofghaveintentionallysatisfiedtheirjointintentionby

performingXasagroup,theyhaveactedforagroupreason(viz.,agroup

reasonforthemembers’partperformance),thereasonherebeinggroup

agentsg’shavingtheintentiontobringaboutXorafurthergoaltowhichthe

members’bringingaboutXcontributes.

51

7. Ifthememberscollectivelyactforagroupreasonasagroup,they

necessarilysatisfythecollectivityconditionwithrespecttoXanditsparts:

Necessarilyduetoactingasagroup,ifthegroupreasonissatisfied(fulfilled)

foranyoneofthem,itissatisfied(fulfilled)forallofthemandthegroup.

8. GroupactsintentionallyasagrouptobringaboutX.(Categoricalpremise

instantiatingtheantecedentof(6)and(7).)

9. ThemembersofAactintentionallyasagroupforthatgroupreason,being

collectivelycommittedtodoingso,andsatisfyingthecollectivitycondition

(Form(2)–(8).)

10. ThemembersofAactedcooperativelyinthewe-mode(From(9)andthe

threecentralcriteriaofthewe-mode(viz.,thegroupreason,collectivity,and

collectivecommitmentcriteria.)(Tuomela2013,p.35–36)

Anindividual’sagencyprovidestheframeworkforeachindividualtopreform

intentionalaction,oractionforareasonfortheirownbehalf(Tuomela2013,p.21)

Tumelaisconcernedbythemotivatingfactorstoachievegroupaction.Ifgroup

reasonmotivatesindividualstoacttogetherandcollectivityembodiesthedesireto

acttogether,thencollectivecommitmentistheglue.Collectivecommitmentacts

throughjoint-intention.Thecornerstoneofwe-modeissharedethos.Individuals

actingtoachievegroupactionwithoutgroupmotivation,commitment,orintention

individualsareoperatinginI-mode,howeverwhenthestrengthofsharedethosis

presentitprovidestheframeworktomotivateindividualsactinsidethegroup

reason,collectivity,andcollectivecommitment.InthemodelingofTuomelagroup

52

formation,thepresenceofwe-intentionisthedrivingtraitthatspursgroup

formation.Agentsareonlyallowedtoformgroupswithagentsthatareindifferent

rolesthanthemselvesandbutsharethesameethos,intention,andbelievethateach

memberwillcontributetothesuccessoftheshareethos(representedasbeliefin

themodel).ForTuomelaitistheexistenceofthesharedbeliefthatthe

accumulationofallparameterswillaccomplishthewe-intentionthattriggergroup

formation.

RealWorldEachsocialontologistmakesunderlyingassumptionsabouttheenvironmentin

whichgroupformationisoccurring.Thereforeeachperspectiveistiedtospecific

circumstancesanditishighlyprobablethatdependingonthemotivatinggoal,

perspectiveoftheindividual,andparametersoftheenvironmentthetypeof

formationwilldiffer.ThemotivatingfactorforBratmanisthepresenceofI-

intentionandforGilbert&Tuomelaitisthepresenceofwe-intention.However,the

motivationsthatfollowforeachperspectivedifferinorder,execution,and

formation.Outsideofthesefactors,themodelhasexternalinfluencesthatimpact

thetypeofgroupformationtooccur.Tocompletetheexperimentationofhowthe

threemodelsdescribedaboveinteract,amodelthatincorporatesallthreegroup

formationmethodswasdeveloped.Thismodelisademonstrationofhowdifferent

formationmechanismsexecutewhenpresentamongsteachother.Thismodelis

necessarilymorecompletethenthemodelsofthethreeindividualaccounts.

53

Thepoweroftheagent-basedmodelingtoolisrevealedthroughthisrealworld

modeldemonstration.Therealworldagent-basedmodelofpotentialgroup

formationstructuresisafirst-of-kind,regimentedvalidationofthethreeproposed

approaches(Bratman,Gilbert,andTuomela)individualsusewhencompleting

groupformationtoachievegroupagency.Althoughthesophisticationofeach

model,fromanament-basedModelingandNetLogoperspectivedoesnotseem

revolutionary,theapplicationofsucharegimenteddisciplinetoafieldthattypically

usesthoughtexperimentsisimpactful.Thisapproachallowsforaqualitative

analysisofthegroupagencywhilesystematicallyanalyzingthepotentialformation

effortsoftheindividuals.

MechanismsforGroupFormationThemechanismsdescribedbyBratman,Gilbert,andTuomelacanbesummarizedin

twocategories:1)individual-basedand2)group-based.Bratmanreliesuponthe

intentionsofindividualstomotivategroupformation.GilbertandTuomelaperceive

theexistenceofwe-intention(oratleasttheawarenessofwe-intention)asthe

beginningofthepathwaytogroupformation.Eachmodelhasanagentattribute

thatpromptstheactiontosearchforpotentialgroupmemberswithinaspecific

searchradius.Thenagentsaccessthesurroundingenvironmentinsearchof

potentialgroupmembersbasedonspecificattributes.Foreachmodeltheorder

attributesaresearchedfordiffers,thiscodingdifferenceistheillustrationforthe

differentsocialontologicalviews.Forthepurposeofthissection,Iwilldescribethe

motivatingfactorsbehindtheprogrammingofeachgroupformationcategory.

54

Individual-BasedForMichaelBratmantheagentcharacteristicthatpromptsmodestsociality(and

thereforethesearchprocess)isI-intentiontoachieveaspecificaction.Allgroup

actionisdrivenbytheindividual’smotivationviaplanningtocompleteataskin

congruencewithothersthatsharethesameI-intention.Bratmanallowsfor

individualstoshareintentions,createaplanandpolicies(withoutconvergencein

beliefs),andcompleteajointaction(Bratman2014p.156).Inthismodel

individualsmusthavesharethesameintentionandtheabilitytomeshsub-plans.

Bratmanreliesuponplanningstructurestoachievegroupformationandtherefore

itisnecessarythatallpotentialgroupmembersarewillingandabletomeshsub-

planstoachievetheagreeduponaction.Modestsociality,anequivalenttogroup

agency,isBratman’sproposedoutcome.

Group-BasedForMargaretGilberttheagentcharacteristicthatpromptsjointintention(and

thereforethesearchprocess)ispriorcommitmentwithotheragents.Gilbert’s

approachisnon-reductive;intentionsarenotmotivatedbytheI-intentionofthe

individualbutratherthesharedintentionpresentinthepriorcommitments.We-

intentionsareonlyformedaftertheformationofthegroupandconsensusofthe

groupobjectiveisreachedwithinthegroup.Gilbertdoessharetheuseof‘shared

intention’withBratman.However,intheGilbertmodelthisisnotrepresentedas

qualifiertogroupformation,butrathertheintentionistransformedtoashared

intentioninthepresenceofpriorcommitment.Althoughtheattributeintentionis

usedallofthemodels,eachapproachusestheattributedifferent.Gilbert,contrary

toBratman,allowssharedintentiontosimplybepresentwhen‘we’isusedto

55

explainwhoistodoanactivity,“weintendtoA”.Formodelingthisnuanceofthe

attributeisnotcaptured,rathertheexistenceofintentionisscreenedforandif

presentthemodelcontinuestoproceedintheactionofgroupformation(Gilbert

2009),relyingthatintentionswillconvergeupongroupformation.TheGilbert

modelissimplestofthemodels,relyingontheprior-commitmentstobethe

connectionforgroupinitializationandthemotivationtoagreeuponawe-intention

toachievegroupagency.

ForRaimoTuomelatheagentcharacteristicthatpromptswe-modegroupformation

(andthereforethesearchprocess)istheexistenceofwe-intentionwithinthe

individual.Hissecondcriteriaisconcernedwiththemotivationoftheindividualon

behalfofthegroup,“We-modeactionisbasedonagroupreasonandisthus

performedforthereasonofpromotingthegroup’sinterest.”(Tuomela2013,p.38).

Groupreasonisthedrivingforcebehindthedesiredactionandillustratedintwo

attributesinthemodel.Inorderforgroupformationtooccurtheintention,the

ethos(orgroupreason),andthebeliefs(presenceofcollectivity)ofthepotential

groupmembersmustbethesameastheintention,ethos,andbeliefsofsearching

agent.Thegroupreason(representedasethosinthemodel)isthemotivationfor

individualstoacttogetherandcollectivity(representedasbeliefinthemodel)and

thereforeembodiesthedesiretoacttogether.Collectivecommitment,the

achievementofgroupagency,actsthroughjoint-intentionthatisformedinthe

presenceofsharedintentions,asharedethos,andsharedbeliefs.‘Groupmembers’

jointintentiontoseetoitthatsomething(groupethos–theaccumulationofgroup

56

reasonandcollectivity)isorwillbethecaseevenonconceptualgroupsgenerates

collectivecommitmentforthemembertoseetoitthat‘p’”(Tuomela2013,p.45).

Allthreecriteriaareconcernedwiththemotivationsontheindividualleveltoact

forthegoodofthegroup.Thecornerstoneofwe-modeissharedethos.

SocialOntologyThroughanAgent-basedModelingPerspectiveComplexsystemsaresystemsthatincludeindividualsactingwithnocentral

decisionmaker.Oftenabehaviorthatwasnotintendedbytheindividuals,emerges

fromthemicro-behaviorsinthesystem.Iapplycomplexsystemtechniquesto

entrepreneurialbehavior,specificallyentrepreneurialgroupbehavior.Thereare

quiteafewentrepreneurialstoriesthattheirsuccessseemedtoemergefromaset

ofunexplainablecircumstancesthatseemtobehardtorecreate.Manypeople

analyzeanddissectthestoriestobeabletostudyandreifytheiractionsand

behaviors.However,aftermanyyearsofanalysisandcasestudiesthereisnota

clear-cuthowtolistofstepstobecomeasuccessfulentrepreneur.Ifforamoment

westepbackandthinkaboutthepossibilitythatindividualentrepreneurs,

representedasagentsthatactasindividuals,aremotivatedbyacertainsetof

sharedbeliefsandgrouptogether,anewvantagepointforadifferentperspectiveof

studyhasbeenestablished.Oncegroupedtogethertheyarestilloperatingas

individualsbutbegintoidentifyasagroup,toformgroupagency.Thereisno

centraldecisionmaker,althoughtheremaybedecisionmakerfigure(a.k.a.‘the

boss’).Becauseofthenatureofentrepreneurship,thesingledecisionmakeristhere

asarepresentationofaneedandnotnecessarilythecentraldivingfigure(thisis

57

necessaryforgroupagency).Thegroupactsovertimeandcreatesemergentsuccess,

culture,orchange.

ScottPagesuggeststhatdiversityingroupscreatesalargerpredictabilityofsuccess.

Healsosuggeststhatindividualsuseacertainsetofheuristicsfortheirdecision

makingprocess,theheuristicshavemoretodowiththeirperceptionofrealityand

thingstheychoosetoacceptastrue.Whencombiningthisideaonperceptionwith

thebehaviorrulesfromgroupagencyandwe-intentionalityfromGilbert,Tuomela,

andothersitchangesthehowtheformingrulesareexecuted.Itsuggeststhatbased

onpre-conceivednotions(whichRuefstartstotalkabout–preconceivednotionsof

entrepreneursbasedondemographics)peoplemakedecisions,decisionsonwhatto

believeandwhytobelieveit.Thiswouldhaveagreatinfluenceonthegroupthat

theychoose,whatdotheychoosetoseeasmostimportant?Howdotheychoose

this?Ruefsuggeststhatthegroupthatanentrepreneurchoosestoworkwithhasan

impactontheformationtimeofthebusiness(Ruef2010p.195).

Themeshingofsocialontologyandagent-basedmodelingwithintheboundariesof

entrepreneurshipopensthedoorforuniquediscussion,asillustratedabove.

However,itistheregimenofagent-basedmodelingthatallowssuchtheoretical

discussiontoabound.Insidetheboundariesofagent-basedmodelingdifferent

thoughttestsareabletobeexperimentedwithtoillustratetheprocesses

individualstaketoformgroups.Additionalcomplexitycanbeaddedtothemodels

byaddinganenvironmentinwhichentrepreneurialactivityandimpactcanoccur.

58

Theflexibilityofagent-basedmodelingtoprovideaframeworktosupport

individualattributes,andthereforethesocialontologicalperspective,aglobal

environment,theeconomicenvironmentinwhichentrepreneurialgroupsact,and

theallofthepossibleinteractions(agentswithagentsandagentswiththe

environment)makesittheperfectmechanismstocompletefoundationalresearch

relatingtoentrepreneurship.

59

ODD(Overview,DesignConcepts,Description)ofAgent-basedModelTheODDisastandardizeddesignapproachtobuildinganddescribingagent-based

models.Itwascreatedbyalargegroupofmodelersin2006(Grimm,et.al.2006)

andupdatedin2010soastomakemodelreviewmoreefficient.Thestandard

designincludessevenelements:purpose,statevariablesandscales,process

overview,designconcepts,initialization,inputdata,andsubmodels.Thedesign

conceptssectionisthemostcomplexandrequiresdescriptionofagentbehaviorsin

elevencategories(notallofwhichappearinagivenagent-basedmodel).

1. BasicPrinciples

2. EmergentBehavior

3. AdaptionbyAgents

4. Learning

5. PredictionbyAgents

6. SensingbyAgentsofOtherAgentsandPatches

7. InteractionRules

8. StochasticityofVariables

9. FormationofCollectives

10. Observation(outputcreation)

TheODDformymodelfollowsbelow.

60

OverviewPurpose:ToincreaseunderstandingofthetheoriesofBratman,Gilbert,&Tuomela’s

approachoncollectiveorgroupintentionalityusingAgent-basedmodeling.Todate

theAgent-basedmodelingapproachhasnotbeenusedinthestudyofsocial

ontologytheories.Thesemodelstonotexisttoproveordisprovethemechanismsof

actioninthesocialontologicalapproach,rathertheysimplyprovideanovel

mechanismtoprovidescientificstructuretotheirstudy.

Inaddition,thismodelactstodisplaygroupagencyusingtheconceptualapproach

proposedbyBratman,Gilbert,&Tuomelausingagent-basedmodeling.Thesesocial

ontologistshaveonlytestedtheirtheoriesusingthoughtexperiments,andhavenot

usedaqualitativeprotocoltosystematicallyproveordisprovetheirassumptions

andtheories.Thedisplayofgroupagencyiscriticalfortheexistenceof

entrepreneurialgroups.ThemodelsinthisODDareworkingtoprovidequalitative

proofbehindtheexistenceofwe-intentionalitytoultimatelyfurtherthestudyof

collectiveentrepreneurship.

StateVariables:Turtles(NetLogo’sgenericagents):Entrepreneurialmindedindividuals:Statevariablesinclude:

• Role:1,2,or3.FritzRedlichseparatesactiverolesinentrepreneurialgroups

intotheinnovator,capitalist,andmanager.Theinnovator,inthemost

traditionalsense,isthe‘entrepreneur’orthe‘dreamer’.Thecapitalist,brings

themoneyandknow-howtofinancetheproject.Themanagerdoesallthe

61

harddirtyworkofdetailstobringtofruitionthedreamersdreams(Redlich

1951).Eachagentcanbeonlyoneofthese.Thedistinctionofthethreeagent

typesissetintheinitialconditions.

• SearchRadius:1–20patches.Thesearchradiusisthedistanceeachturtle

can‘see’or‘sense’otherpotentialturtlestodetermineiftheyareeligibleto

formagroup.Thesearchradiusismeasurefromthecenterofapatchtothe

centerofadifferentpatch.

• Bratman• I-Intention:Binary,PresentorAbsent.I-intentionisbasisof

Bratman’sapproachonwe-intentionality.IntheBratmanmodel,I-

intentionmustbepresenttoparticipateinthegroupsearch.

• Intention:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Afterthesearchprocesshas

beguntheagentsearchesforotheragentswithintentionthatisthe

sameastheirs.

Figure1:IllustrationofSearchRadiusinAgent-basedModels

62

• Mesh:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Agentssearchforagentsthatare

abletomeshtheirsub-planstogether.

• Gilbert• PriorCommitment:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Priorcommitmentis

thefirststepofwe-intentionalityforGilbert.IntheGilbertmodel

priorcommitmentmustbepresenttoparticipateinthegroupsearch.

• Intention:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Aftergroupformationhas

occurredtheintentionofthegroupcomestoaconsensus.

• Tuomela• We-intention:Binary,PresentorAbsent.We-intentionisthefirststep

ofwe-intentionalityforTuomela.IntheTuomelamodelwe-intention

mustbepresenttoparticipateinthegroupsearch.

• Ethos:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Inorderforwe-modegroupaction

tooccuragentsmustsharethesame‘ethos’.

• Intention:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Afterthesearchprocesshas

beguntheagentsearchesforotheragentswithintentionthatisthe

sameastheirs.

• Belief:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Beliefintheabilityforthegroupto

completethecollectiveintentionisnecessaryforwe-intentionality.

• Real-World• I-Intention:Binary,PresentorAbsent.I-intentionisrepresentativeof

theBratmanmodel.

• Intention:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Afterthesearchprocesshas

beguntheagentsearchesforotheragentswithintentionthatisthe

63

sameastheirs,ortheintentioncomestocongruence.Intentionis

presentinallproposedmodels.

• Mesh:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Meshisrepresentativeofthe

Bratmanmodel.

• PriorCommitment:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Priorcommitmentis

representativeoftheGilbertmodel.

• We-intention:Binary,PresentorAbsent.We-intentionis

representativeoftheTuomelamodel.

• Ethos:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Ethosisrepresentativeofthe

Tuomelamodel.

• Belief:Binary,PresentorAbsent.Beliefisrepresentativeofthe

Tuomelamodel.

Patches(NetLogo’scellsinspatialarray):Thelandscapeisa99x99squaregrid.

Eachpatchrepresentsaspecificlatentopportunity.Theagentsareplacedona

particularpatchthroughstochasticplacement.Agentsareplacedonpatchesoneat

atimeaspartoftheinitialconditions.Attheonsetofthegroupsearchprocess

multipleagentsareabletooccupyonepatch.Thesearchprocessfortheagentsis

primarilyfocusedonthesearchforothereligibleagentsforgroupformation.

However,eachagentisonlyabletoseealimitednumberofpatchesbasedontheir

search-radius,andthereforealimitedsub-sectionoftheirworld.Asagentsfind

suitablegroupmembersthepatchthatthegroupisformedbecomesthenew‘home’

64

ofthegroup,thispatchistheopportunitytheentrepreneurialgroupisacting

collectivelytopursue.

GlobalEnvironment:None Scales:

Statevariableswilleitherbescaledfrom1–10orbinary(presentorabsent).Each

statevariableisdescribedabove.

ProcessOverview:

Multiplephilosophersofsocialontologyhavedevelopedtheoriesastohowandwhy

peoplesharewe-intentionality.Thesemodelstesteachphilosopher’stheoryusing

therigorofAgent-basedmodeling.Eachauthorwillfirstbetestedindividuallyand

thenallthreetheoriesforgroupformationwillbeallowedtoexerciseatthesame

time.Themodelsworkintimesteps,eachtimestepinnotrepresentativeofa

specificamountoftime.Proximitytoeachagentdoesdeterminethespeedatwhich

interactionwilloccurhoweveritdoesnotrepresentadditionalvariables.

Bratman:

• Ateachtimestepindividualssearchforotherindividualsorexistingcollectives

toestablishmembership.Theindividualwillobservepossibletargetswithinits

searchradius,andthenmovetowardthetarget.Targetsforeachexperimentare

describedinsub-modelbelow.

65

• Ifanencounteriscompletedwithinthetimestep,theagentsensestheattributes

oftheotheragent(individualorcollective)thatco-locatesonthepatchtoseeif

theyarecompatiblecollectivepartners.(Inthecaseofanexistingcollective,this

willbegovernedbymembershipsizelimitationsandbytheclassofagentandits

background).

• Ifmembershipcriteriaaremet,thentheagentstaysforthenexttimestep.

• Ifmembershipisnotmet,theagentrestartsthesearchprocessinthenexttime

step.

• Ifanincipientcollectiveexistsonthesamepatch(unaffiliatedindividuals),begin

negotiationoverobligationsandclaims.Ifaplanincreatedwithinbounds,

completefirm(collectiveformation).DetailsinrelationtoplaninBratmansub-

planbelow.

• Ifanexistingcollectiveandapotential-memberindividualexistonthesame

patchinagiventimestepandmembershipcriteriawereestablishedinaprior

timestep,newmemberintentionalityisassessedbycollective.Individual

acceptsorrefuses.

• Ifaccepts,thenthecollectivemembershipisupdatedinthetimestep.

• Ifnoacceptanceoccurs,Individualre-initiatessearch.

• Ifallmembers’aspirationlevelsaremet,thecollectiveremains.

• Ifaspirationlevelsofallmemberswillnotbemetoncurrentpatchthecollective

dissolves.Inthenexttimestep,eachindividualbeginssearchprocesstofind

newcollectivepartners.

66

• Attheendofeachtimestep,individualstatevariablesareupdated:membership

withcollectiveandlocation.

• Attheendofeachtimestep,collectivesupdatemembership,location,andstatus

ofdutiesandclaims.

Gilbert:

• Ateachtimestepindividualssearchforotherindividualsorexistingcollectives

toestablishmembership.Theindividualwillobservepossibletargetswithinits

searchradius,andthenmovetowardthetarget.Targetsforeachexperimentare

describedinsub-modelbelow.

• Ifanencounteriscompletedwithinthetimestep,theagentsensestheattributes

oftheotheragent(individualorcollective)thatco-locatesonthepatchtoseeif

theyarecompatiblecollectivepartners.(Inthecaseofanexistingcollective,this

willbegovernedbymembershipsizelimitationsandbytheclassofagentandits

background).

• Ifmembershipcriteriaaremet,thentheagentstaysforthenexttimestep.

• Ifmembershipisnotmet,theagentrestartsthesearchprocessinthenexttime

step.

• Ifanincipientcollectiveexistsonthesamepatch(unaffiliatedindividuals),begin

negotiationoverobligationsandclaims.Ifaplanincreatedwithinbounds,

completefirm(collectiveformation).DetailsinrelationtoplaninGilbertsub-

planbelow.

67

• Ifanexistingcollectiveandapotential-memberindividualexistonthesame

patchinagiventimestepandmembershipcriteriawereestablishedinaprior

timestep,newmemberintentionalityisassessedbycollective.Individual

acceptsorrefuses.

• Ifaccepts,thenthecollectivemembershipisupdatedinthetimestep.

• Ifnoacceptanceoccurs,Individualre-initiatessearch.

• Ifallmembers’aspirationlevelsaremet,thecollectiveremains.

• Ifaspirationlevelsofallmemberswillnotbemetoncurrentpatchthecollective

dissolves.Inthenexttimestep,eachindividualbeginssearchprocesstofind

newcollectivepartners.

• Attheendofeachtimestep,individualstatevariablesareupdated:membership

withcollectiveandlocation.

• Attheendofeachtimestep,collectivesupdatemembership,location,andstatus

ofdutiesandclaims.

Tuomela:

• Ateachtimestepindividualssearchforotherindividualsorexistingcollectives

toestablishmembership.Theindividualwillobservepossibletargetswithinits

searchradius,andthenmovetowardthetarget.Targetsforeachexperimentare

describedinsub-modelbelow.

• Ifanencounteriscompletedwithinthetimestep,theagentsensestheattributes

oftheotheragent(individualorcollective)thatco-locatesonthepatchtoseeif

theyarecompatiblecollectivepartners.(Inthecaseofanexistingcollective,this

68

willbegovernedbymembershipsizelimitationsandbytheclassofagentandits

background).

• Ifmembershipcriteriaaremet,thentheagentstaysforthenexttimestep.

• Ifmembershipisnotmet,theagentrestartsthesearchprocessinthenexttime

step.

• Ifanincipientcollectiveexistsonthesamepatch(unaffiliatedindividuals),begin

negotiationoverobligationsandclaims.Ifaplanincreatedwithinbounds,

completefirm(collectiveformation).DetailsinrelationtoplaninTuomelasub-

planbelow.

• Ifanexistingcollectiveandapotential-memberindividualexistonthesame

patchinagiventimestepandmembershipcriteriawereestablishedinaprior

timestep,newmemberintentionalityisassessedbycollective.Individual

acceptsorrefuses.

• Ifaccepts,thenthecollectivemembershipisupdatedinthetimestep.

• Ifnoacceptanceoccurs,Individualre-initiatessearch.

• Ifallmembers’aspirationlevelsaremet,thecollectiveremains.

• Ifaspirationlevelsofallmemberswillnotbemetoncurrentpatchthecollective

dissolves.Inthenexttimestep,eachindividualbeginssearchprocesstofind

newcollectivepartners.

• Attheendofeachtimestep,individualstatevariablesareupdated:membership

withcollectiveandlocation.

• Attheendofeachtimestep,collectivesupdatemembership,location,andstatus

ofdutiesandclaims.

69

RealWorld:

• Ateachtimestepindividualssearchforotherindividualsorexistingcollectives

toestablishmembership.Theindividualwillobservepossibletargetswithinits

searchradius,andthenmovetowardthetarget.Targetsforeachexperimentare

describedinsub-modelbelow.

• Ifanencounteriscompletedwithinthetimestep,theagentsensestheattributes

oftheotheragent(individualorcollective)thatco-locatesonthepatchtoseeif

theyarecompatiblecollectivepartners.(Inthecaseofanexistingcollective,this

willbegovernedbymembershipsizelimitationsandbytheclassofagentandits

background).

• Ifmembershipcriteriaaremet,thentheagentstaysforthenexttimestep.

• Ifmembershipisnotmet,theagentrestartsthesearchprocessinthenexttime

step.

• Ifanincipientcollectiveexistsonthesamepatch(unaffiliatedindividuals),begin

negotiationoverobligationsandclaims.Ifaplanincreatedwithinbounds,

completefirm(collectiveformation).DetailsinrelationtoplaninReal-World

sub-planbelow.

• Ifanexistingcollectiveandapotential-memberindividualexistonthesame

patchinagiventimestepandmembershipcriteriawereestablishedinaprior

timestep,newmemberintentionalityisassessedbycollective.Individual

acceptsorrefuses.

• Ifaccepts,thenthecollectivemembershipisupdatedinthetimestep.

70

• Ifnoacceptanceoccurs,Individualre-initiatessearch.

• Ifallmembers’aspirationlevelsaremet,thecollectiveremains.

• Ifaspirationlevelsofallmemberswillnotbemetoncurrentpatchthecollective

dissolves.Inthenexttimestep,eachindividualbeginssearchprocesstofind

newcollectivepartners.

• Attheendofeachtimestep,individualstatevariablesareupdated:membership

withcollectiveandlocation.

• Attheendofeachtimestep,collectivesupdatemembership,location,andstatus

ofdutiesandclaims.

DesignConceptsDesignConcepts:Philosophershavecontemplatedwhypeoplecometogether;what

forceisthemotivationforanindividualtoreleasecontrolandbewillingtowork

togetherwithothers?

Groupworkfacilitatedbywe-intentionalityispresentinoureverydaylife.Some

examplesinclude:1)makinghollandaisesaucewithafriend,2)cleaningthehouse

withyourroommate,or3)completingapaperwithagroupmember.However,

withoutcarefulconsiderationtothetaskitiseasyfortwoindividualstoworkon

separategoals,whichhappentohavethesameoutcome.Accordingtotheliterature

therearespecificguidelinesastowhenwe-intentionalityispresent.Michael

Bratmanbelieveswe-intentionalityispresentwhentwoormoreindividualshavea

sharedplantoaccomplishasingleintention.

71

MargaretGilbertreliesuponpriorcommitmentstoformthestructuralgluethat

motivatesindividualstoacttogethertoachievegroupagency.RaimoTuomelarelies

upontheexistenceofsharedethos(orinnermotivatingbeliefsystem)ofindividuals

tosupportgroupformation.To-datewe-intentionalityhasonlybeenwrittenand

thoughtaboutconceptually.ItistheintentionoftheseAgent-basedmodelstomodel

groupformation,withspecialconsiderationtakentogroupformationof

entrepreneurs.

Thebasicprinciplesofthemodelderivefromindividual-basedentrepreneurial

behaviors(e.g.searchforopportunitiesinthebusinessenvironment)andfromthe

designprinciplethatentrepreneurialorganizationsmustconsistofthreeprimary

entrepreneurialfunctions,representedbythreedifferentagents:innovation,

uncertainty-bearing,andfirmformation.Theforegoingdesignprinciplederives

fromheterodoxeconomicsandthehistoryofentrepreneurship.Thus,themodel

willnotallowfortheinstantiationofanentrepreneurialfirmunlessallthree

functions/agentsexistinthesamelocationinthelandscape.Theformationofthe

collectiverequirestheestablishmentofwe-intentionalityforgroupactionuponthe

jointoutcomes(income)ofthecollective.Thiscomesfromsocialontologyand

followsanumberofpossiblepathsfromI-intentionalityoftheindividualagentsto

we-intentionalityofthegroupmemberstoactivejointagency(andeconomicaction

asacollectiveentity).Thecollectiveentity“harvests”earningsfromthelandscape

patchandperiodicallyassessesthelandscapetoseeifhigher-outcomepatchesare

72

availableforexploitation.Eventually,collectivesmaydisbandiftheearningscannot

meettheaspirationsofindividualagentsandtheindividualclaimsuponthem.

Thesectionsbelowconsiderthespecificbehaviorsandotherdesignelementsfrom

theODDprotocoloutlinedabove(page32).

Emergence:Individualbehaviorsareprimarilydependentuponindividualstate

variablesandinteractionrulesdefinedforcollectiveformationandmembership.

Aftergroupsofagentsformthegroupwillbetherepresentativeagentforthe

opportunity.Agentshaveaspartoftheirattributesintentionalityandwe-

intentionality.Whenagentsarecloseenoughtoformagrouptheformationofthe

groupimpliesthattheindividuals’we-intentionalityisintomorphedtogroup-

agencysothattheactiveagentisnowthegroupandnolongertheindividuals.The

emergentbehaviorofthemodelistheactionofthenewagent,asanagglomeration

oftheindividuals.

Adaptation:Notpresentinthismodel.Infuturemodelsagentscouldadapttheir

levelofintention,belief,andcooperationafterexperiencewithgroupformation.

Fitness:Notpresentinthismodel.Infuturemodelsagentscouldreacttotheir

environmentbasedontheiradaptionofintention,belief,andcooperationtobecome

moreattractivegroupmembersforthesearchprocess.

73

Objectives:Althoughadaptionandfitnessarenotpresentinthisearlymodeland

thereforeitisnotnecessaryfortheobjectivesoftheindividualstobeexplicitly

listed,Ibelieveittobebeneficialtomentionthatinthismodelindividualsare

guidedbytheinteractionrulesinplacethatoperateunderahierarchyofobjectives

ofeachindividualdependentuponthemodelinoperation.

Prediction:Eachagentwillpredicttheexpectedpayoffsofeachopportunity.This

willhelpdetermineiftheymoretowardanopportunity.Eachagentwill

predict1)thevalueofopportunityastheindividualand2)thecapacityeach

agenthasworkingtogetherandstillreceiveahighpayoffasanindividual.The

requiredpayoffwillbestochasticallydistributed.

Sensing:Currentlyallindividualscanseeotherslevelsofintention,belief,

cooperationandwillingnesstowriteaplan.Agentsalsoareabletosenseifthey

havesharedconnectionswithagentsorsharean‘ethos’.Specialsensingabilities

willbegiventocertainopportunitiesbecauseofdifferentbusinesstypes.Thestate

variable‘trust’willalsodeterminehowmucheachagentisabletosense.

Interactions:Allagentsinteracttogether.Eachagent‘meets’togainknowledgeof

otheragents’behaviors.FromthereeachexperimentisdifferentforBratman,

Gilbert,&Tuomela.

74

Stochasticity:Asmentionedearlier,requiredpayoffwillbeanendowedinitial

conditionandisdeterministic.

Collectives:Collectivesareformedthroughemergentbehavior.Oncecollectiveshave

beenformedthegroupwillthenactonbehalfoftheopportunity.Breedsofeach

typeofgroupwe-intentionalitywillthenactastheagent.

Observation:Theworlddisplayshowsthelocationofeachagentontheopportunity

landscape.Additionaloutputswillbecountersforthoseingroupformationand

thosegroupedandexploitingopportunities.

Details

Initialization:Foreachmodel,agentsaregivenindividualattributesdeterminedby

thesocialontologicalperspectiveofthemodel.Eachmodelisdescribedindetail

belowassub-models.Theinitializationofeachmodelisthesame.Eachmodelhas

30turtles(agents)ofeachagentrole(role1,2,and3)foratotalof90agentsthat

canformamaximumof30groups.Withineachroleagentsaregivenallindividual

attributesrandomly,exceptforintention.Theabsenceofintentionisreceivedby

exactly15ofeachroletype,andthepresenceofintentionisreceivedbyexactly15

ofeachroletype.

Input:Theenvironmentisassumedtobeconstant,noinputdataisnecessary.

75

Sub-models:Allmodelparametersfortheenvironmentarethesameforallmodels

represented.Amodelwasdesignedtorepresenteachontologicalviewaswellasa

modeldesignedtorepresentanenvironmentwithallviewsoperatingatonce.Inthe

processoverviewIeludedtoeachmodel’stargetsforgroupmembersandthe

negotiationnecessarytocompletegroupformation.Iwilldescribeindetail,using

codeasexplanation,eachofthemodelstargetsandnegotiationrequirements.

• Bratman

o Target:ThetargetattributeforgroupformationintheBratmanmodel

isI-intention.I-intentionisrepresentativeofanagent’sintentionto

completeagroup-taskonanindividuallevel.Allgroupmembers

muchhaveI-intentiontoformaBratmangroup.I-intentionmust

equal1.

o Negotiation:Oncethegroupsearchhasbegun,agentssearchfor

agentswithdifferentrolesthanthemselves,thepresenceofintention,

andtheabilitytomeshsub-plans.

76

o Completionofmodel:Themodeliscompleteonceanyagentswitha

givenroledonotremainwithI-intentionpresent.

• Gilbert

o Target:ThetargetattributeforgroupformationintheGilbertmodel

ispriorcommitments.Priorcommitmentsarerepresentativeofan

agent’srelationshipwithagentspriortogroupsearch.Allgroup

membersmustshareapriorcommitmenttoformagroupinthe

Gilbertmodel.Priorcommitmentmustequal1.

o Negotiation:Oncethegroupsearchhasbegun,agentssearchfor

agentswithdifferentrolesandpriorcommitmentstoformgroups.

Intentionoftheagentisastatevariable,howevertheintentionofthe

agentismorphedtobelikeallgroupmembersoncepairedwith

groupagentsofpriorcommitments.

77

o Completionofmodel:Themodeliscompleteonceanyagentswitha

givenroledonotremainwithpriorcommitmentspresent.

o

• Tuomelao Target:ThetargetattributeforgroupformationintheTuomelamodel

iswe-intention.We-intentionisrepresentativeofanagent’sdesireto

completeagroup-taskonanindividuallevel,takingaholism

approachtointention.Allgroupmembersmuchhavewe-intentionto

formaTuomelagroup.We-intentionmustequal1.

78

o Negotiation:Oncethegroupsearchhasbegun,agentssearchfor

agentswithdifferentrolesthanthemselves,thepresenceofintention,

thepresenceofethos,andthepresenceofbelief.

o Completionofmodel:Themodeliscompleteonceanyagentswitha

particularroledonotremainwithwe-intentionpresent.

• Real-World(aworldwhereallthreeontologicalaccountsarepossible)

o Target:Thetargetattributeforgroupformationinthereal-world

modelisdependentuponthesub-modelbeingprocessedatthetime.

Bratman,Gilbert,andTuomelaareallrepresentedinthereal-world

model.Allofthetargetsforthesemodelsaredescribedabove.

o Negotiation:Oncethegroupsearchhasbegunagentssearchfor

agentswithdifferentrolesthanthemselvesthatqualifytothe

particularsub-modelbeingprocessedatthetime.Allofthe

negotiationrequirementsforthesub-modelsaredescribedabove.

79

o Completionofmodel:Thismodelrunsindefinitelyinthecurrent

design.

80

ModelResultsFourmodelsaredisplayedforthepurposeofdemonstrationofgroupformation

usingagent-basedmodeling.Itisexpectedthateachmodelwillsimplyrepresentthe

agentsabilitytoparticipateinasearchprocesstofindgroupmembersandthen

achievegroupagencyvianecessaryconditionsforwe-intentionality.Insideeach

modelthesearchradiuswillbetestedtoconfirmthatthelargeranareaanagent

cansearchforpotentialgroupmembersthequickergroupformationiscompleted.

Insomeofthemodelsittakesmanystepstoformallgroups,inthesemodels

restrictionswereaddedtothemodeltestingtobeginpreformingthenexttestafter

5000timesteps.InthesemodelsIexpecttheaveragenumberoftimestepsfor

groupformationtodecreasefrom5000assearchradiusincreases.

NetLogowasusedfortheagent-basedmodelingofthegroupformation(Railsback

2012).Figure1depictsthehomescreenforallmodels.

Figure2:NetLogohomescreenforallmodelsdepictedinthisthesis

81

Thesetupbuttonisthetriggerforthecreationofalloftheagentsonthescreen.The

gobuttonpromptstheagentstoactaccordingtotheirindividualattributesand

interactwithothersurroundingagents.The‘sr’button,isaslider,allowingforthe

searchradius(Searchradiusisrepresentedby‘sr’withinthemodelcoding.The

searchradiusistheareaeachagentcansenseotheragentsandaccesstheir

individualattributes)ofeachindividualagenttobemodifiedquicklyfromthehome

screen.Threedifferentagentsrolesarerepresentedinthemodelanddepictedby

thedifferentcolorofagents(i.e.1=innovator,2=capitalist,and3=manager).The

threerolesarenecessarytoinsurethatgroupsaremadeupofdifferenttypesof

individuals.

Figure3:NetLogocompletedmodel

82

Whenagentsidentifypossibleotheragentstoformagroupwiththeagentsrelocate

andaccessthequalitiesoftheotheragents.Ifagentsaresuitableforgroup

formationthenallagentschangecolortored(orsomeotherpredeterminedcolor)

andstopparticipatinginthegroupsearch.Theredcolorindicatestheachievement

ofgroupagency.Eachagent-basedmodelhas90turtleswith30turtlesineachrole,

forapossibilityoftheformationof30three-agentgroupsduringeachexperiment.

ForeachmodelIwillpresentthenumbersofgroupsformedandtheamountoftime

ittookforallpossiblegroupstoform,dependentuponthesearchradius.Each

experimentistheaverageof25modeltrials.

BratmanTheBratmanmodelrequiresI-intentiontoparticipateinthesearchprocess.

ExpectedresultswerefoundduringtheBratmanmodelexercise.Roughly15%of

totalpotentialgroupsformedatsearchradiusfive,20%oftotalpotentialgroups

formedatsearchradiusten,23%oftotalpotentialgroupsformedatsearchradius

fifteen,and24%oftotalpotentialgroupsformedatsearchradiustwenty.Asthe

searchradiusincreasedagentswereabletoformgroupsataquickerrate.The

Bratmanmodelwaslimitedto5000timesteps.

SearchRadius

Average#ofGroupsFormed

Average#ofTimeStepsforallAgentstoFormGroups

5 4.69 5,000.0010 6.04 4,884.8415 6.97 4,881.6020 7.40 3,866.84

Table2:BratmanAgent-basedModelingResults

83

GilbertTheGilbertmodelrequiresprior-commitmenttoparticipateinthesearchprocess.

ExpectedresultswerefoundduringtheGilbertmodelexercise.Roughly40%of

totalpotentialgroupsformed,asthesearchradiusincreasedagentswereableto

formgroupsataquickerrate.

SearchRadius

Average#ofGroupsFormed

Average#ofTimeStepsforallAgentstoFormGroups

5 11.6 15,739.1810 11.96 6,541.1015 11.78 2,445.2220 11.58 1,186.18

Table3:GilbertAgent-basedModelingResults

TuomelaTheTuomelamodelrequireswe-intentiontoparticipateinthesearchprocess.

ExpectedresultswerefoundduringtheTuomelamodelexercise.Roughly8%of

totalpotentialgroupsformedatsearchradiusfive,16%oftotalpotentialgroups

formedatsearchradiusten,18.5%oftotalpotentialgroupsformedatsearchradius

fifteen,and19%oftotalpotentialgroupsformedatsearchradiustwenty.Asthe

searchradiusincreasedagentswereabletoformgroupsataquickerrate,because

oftheincreasednumberofgroupsformed.TheTuomelamodelwaslimitedto5000

timessteps.

SearchRadius

Average#ofGroupsFormed

Average#ofTimeStepsforallAgentstoFormGroups

5 2.4 5,000.0010 4.84 5,000.0015 5.56 5,000.0020 5.68 5,000.00

Table4:TuomelaAgent-basedModelingResults

84

Real-WorldThereal-worldmodelteststheinteractionthatoccurswhenmultiplemethodsof

groupformationarepresent.Thismodelisimportantinitstestingtosimply

illustratetheabilityforallthreetechniquestobepresentinoneenvironmentand

allthreesub-modelscontinuetooperate.TheBratmanmethodforgroupformation

formedthemostgroupswithasearchradiusof5or10.TheGilbertmethodformed

themostgroupswithasearchradiusof15or20.Thisisexpectedbecauseofthe

lackofagentrequirementsforgroupformationforbothBratmanandGilbert.Witha

smallersearchradiusBratmanformedmoregroupsbecausehissearchprocesswas

thefirstsub-modeltoproceed,followedbyGilbertandthenTuomela.Tuomelahad

thefewestgroupsformedbecauseofthehighnumberofqualifiersnecessaryfor

groupformation.FigurethreebelowshowsaNetLogomodelscreenwithallthree

groupformationsoccurring(representedbythered,orange,andyellowagents).

SearchRadius

Average#ofGroupsFormed

BratmanGroups

GilbertGroups

TuomelaGroups

Avg.#ofTimesStepsforAllAgentstoForm

Groups5 3.68 1.80 1.24 0.63 5,000.0010 4.64 1.94 1.91 0.79 5,000.0015 5.36 1.99 2.17 1.19 5,000.0020 4.97 2.03 2.23 0.71 5,000.00

Table5:Real-WorldAgent-basedModelingResults

85

Figure4:Real-WorldModelNetLogoRepresentation

FurtherStudyTheexerciseofcompletingagent-basedmodelsfortheillustrationofsocialontology

presentingroupformationwasthepurposeofthisthesis.Thatis,thesemodels

examinethedynamicsofteamformationunderthreespecificontologicalaccounts.

Itisdesignedwithincipientflexibilitytochangethedistributionofagenttypes,size

ofthelandscape,andthemobilityofagents.Additionalresearchneedstobe

completedusingthebackbonecreatedhere,tostudy,in-depth,theimpacta

particularontologyhasongroupformation.Themodelscanthenbefurther

expandedtorepresentaspecificeconomicenvironmentinwhichthegroupsformed

canthenexploitopportunities.

86

Contrarytothecurrentmodel,inwhichIassumeoccupationofthesamepatch

indicatesgroupagency,amodelneedstobedevelopedinwhichthecollectivegroup

formedtheninteractswiththeenvironmentasoneagent.Economicmeasurescan

thenbemonitored.Forexample,earningsofthecollectivecouldemergefrom

interactionbetweenthecollectiveandthelandscapepatch(harvest)accordingto

landscape-levelrules,competitiveeffectsthatarisefromthejuxtapositionofother

collectives,andthespeedatwhichdifferentcollectivesformonthelandscape.Itwill

beinterestingtoexplicitlymodelthepotentialeconomicpayoffsfromlandscape

patches,soastoseehowthecollectivescompletewitheachotherasgroupagents

(inthelistandPettitsense).

87

ConclusionThisstudyofgroupentrepreneurshipiscompletelyreliantuponunderstandingthe

socialontologyoftheindividualscomprisingthegroup.Contrarytothebusiness

managementorsocialscienceapproachtoentrepreneurship,thebestwaytostudy

entrepreneurshipisahybridindividual–groupperspective.Theindividual’s

attributeswilldefinethemethodtowhichgroupformationoccurs,andtherefore

influencethestructureandgovernanceoftheentrepreneurialgroup.The

governanceisthedominantforceintheimplementationofgroupagencyatahuman

level.

Groupagencywaseasilyachievedinacomputermodelsimulation.Infurther

developmentofthemodel,individualscouldhavetheopportunitytodefectfromthe

formedgroupandactoutsideofgroupagency.However,tobestunderstandthe

governancenecessarytoforcegroupagency,itiscriticaltotraceandunderstand

thesocialontologyoftheindividualsthatcausedthegroupformation.Thatisthe

purposeofthisthesis.Idefendgroupentrepreneurshipthroughanextensive

literaturereviewofcollectiveintentionalityandgroupagencyleadingtoanagent-

basedmodelofgroupformation.Ibelievecollectiveintentionalityisthemotivation

fortheactionofgroupformation.However,becauseofthecomplexityofhuman

naturethephilosopherswhostudyintentionalitycannotagreeononedefinition.

MichaelBratman,MargaretGilbert,andRaimoTuomelaallhavedifferent

mechanismsforhowindividualwe-intentionalityleadstogroupagency.I

systematicallybrokedownandcomparedallthreetheoriesfinishingmyanalysis

88

withacomparisoninagent-basedmodelingusingNetLogo.Agent-basedmodeling

allowsforamodelsimulationofgroupbehaviorandemergentphenomenawhile

accountingforthedifferencesinindividuals,localinteractions,andadaptive

behavioroftheindividuals.

Theimmediateimplicationofthemodelspresentedistheinter-disciplinary

propositionofanewframeworkforgroupformation.Thegroupformationitselfis

notthefocus;ratheritistheapproachtothestudyofthegroupformation.Group

formationstudiedonlyundertheumbrellaofontologyprovidesnoframeworkto

quantitativelyanalyzetheimpactchangestotheontologyhasongroups.Economics

rarelystudiesthegroupformation,butonlytheconsequencesofgroups.Withthe

useofecologicalmethodsIwasabletodrawaconnectionbetweenthestudyofthe

individualinontologyandthestudyofthegroupineconomics.Thisconnection

buildsavaluableframeworkforfurtherworktogrowfromandincreasethe

understandingoftheimpactindividualshaveonthemacro-environment.

Furtherreachingimplicationsofthisworkexpandintotheincreasedknowledgeof

entrepreneurialgroupstohelpsupportthestudyofentrepreneurialsuccess.By

addingsophisticationtotheagent-basedmodelspresentedinthisthesissubstantial

workcanbedonetobegintotestvariablesthatleadtoentrepreneurialsuccess.By

reducingthesubjectofstudydowntotheintentionoftheindividualthefieldof

entrepreneurshipnowhasavehicletotestandbegintounderstandwhysome

entrepreneurialventuresthrive.Inaddition,oncetheindividualattributeshave

89

beenidentifiedtheflexibilitytoaddenvironmentalfactorsisnowpresent.It

becomespossibletoaskquestionsaspoignantas,“Whattypeofentrepreneurial

groupsurvivedandthrivedduringtheeconomicenvironmentoftheAmericanGreat

Depression?”.Although,thisapproachcannotpredictfuturesuccessitcanbeatool

toprovideincreasedunderstandingtothemysterioussuccessofentrepreneurs.

90

WorksCitedAgassi,Joseph."MethodologicalIndividualism."TheBritishJournalofSociology11.3

(1960):244-70.Wiley.Web.11Oct.2014.Arrow,Holly,JosephEdwardMcGrath,andJenniferL.Berdahl.SmallGroupsas

ComplexSystemsFormation,Coordination,DevelopmentandAdaptation.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications,2000.Print.

Arrow,KennethJ."MethodologicalIndividualismandSocialKnowledge."The

AmericanEconomicReview84.2(1994):1-9.AmericanEconomicAssociation.Web.11Oct.2014.

Arthur,BrianW."Chapter32Out-of-EquilibriumEconomicsAndAgent-Based

Modeling."HandbookofComputationalEconomics2(2005):1551-564.Print.

Arthur,BrianW.“ComplexityEconomics:ADifferentFrameworkforEconomic

Thought.”SantaFeeInstitute,WorkingPaper.2013.Print.Boone,C.,W.VanOlffen,A.VanWitteloostuijn,andB.DeBrabander."TheGenesisOf

TopManagementTeamDiversity:SelectiveTurnoverAmongTopManagementTeamsInDutchNewspaperPublishing,1970-94."AcademyofManagementJournal47(2004):633-56.Print.

Bratman,Michael.SharedAgency:APlanningTheoryofActingTogether.Print.Bratman,MichaelE."ResponsibilityandPlanning."TheJournalofEthics1.1(1997):

27-43.Springer.Web.22Oct.2014.Buchanan,Mark.TheSocialAtom:WhytheRichGetRicher,CheatersGetCaught,and

YourNeighborUsuallyLookslikeYou.NewYork:BloomsburyUSA:,2007.Print.

Burress,MollyJ.,andMichaelL.Cook.“APrimeronCollectiveEntrepreneurship:A

PreliminaryTaxonomy”UniversityofMissouri,DepartmentofAgriculturalEconomics,2009.Print.

Burt,RonaldS.StructuralHoles:TheSocialStructureofCompetition.Cambridge,

Mass.:HarvardUP,1992.Print.DeAngelis,DonaldL.,andWolfM.Mooij."Individual-BasedModelingofEcological

AndEvolutionaryProcesses1."AnnualReviewofEcology,Evolution,andSystematics(2005)147-68.Print.

Elsenbroich,Corinna,andG.NigelGilbert.ModelingNorms.Dordrecht:Springer,

91

2014.Print.Elster,Jon."TheCaseforMethodologicalIndividualism."TheoryandSociety11.4

(1982):453-82.Springer.Web.11Oct.2014.Ensley,MichaelD.,JamesW.Carland,andJoAnnC.Carland."Investigatingthe

ExistenceoftheLeadEntrepreneur."JournalofSmallBusinessManagement38.4(2000):59-77.Print.

Epstein,Brian."WhatIsIndividualisminSocialOntology?OntologicalIndividualism

vs.AnchorIndividualism."RethinkingtheIndividualism-HolismDebate:17-38.Print.

Epstein,Brian.TheAntTrap:RebuildingtheFoundationsoftheSocialSciences.New

York:OxfordUP,2015.Print.Gartner,WilliamB.,KellyG.Shaver,ElizabethGatewood,andJeromeA.Katz.

"FindingtheEntrepreneurinEntrepreneurship."EntrepreneurshipTheory&PracticeSpring(1994):5-9.Print.

Gilbert,Margaret.“JointCommitment:HowWeMaketheSocialWorld.”London:

OxfordUniversityPress,2014.Print.Gilbert,Margaret."SharedIntentionandPersonalIntentions."PhilesStud

PhilosophicalStudies:AnInternationalJournalforPhilosophyintheAnalyticTradition144.1(2009):167-87.Springer.Web.23Oct.2014.

Gold,Natalie,andRobertSugden."CollectiveIntentionsAndTeamAgency."Journal

ofPhilosophy104.3(2007):109-37.JournalofPhilosophy,Inc.Web.29May2014.

GrimmV.,Berger,U.,Bastiansen.F.,Eliassen,S.,Ginot,V.,Giske,J.,Goss-Custard,J.,

Grant,T.,Heinz,S.,Huse,G.,Huth,A.,JepsenJ.,Jorgensen,C.,Mooij,W.,Muller,B.,Peer,G.,Pior,C.,Railsback,S.,Robbins,A.,Robbins,M.,Rossmanith,E.,Ruger,N.,Stand,E.,Souissi,S.,Stillman,R.,Vabo,R.,Visser,U.&DeAngelis,D.2006.Astandardprotocolfordescribingindividuals-basedandagent-basedmodels.EcologicalModelling,198,115-126.

Grimm,V.,Berger,U.,DeAngelis,D.,Polhill,J.,Giske,J.&Railsback,S.2010.TheODD

protocol:Areviewandfirstupdate.EcologicalModeling.221,2760–2768.Grimm,Volker,andStevenF.Railsback.Individual-basedModelingandEcology.

Princeton:PrincetonUP,2005.Print.Hashimoto,Keiko."ALiteratureReviewofEntrepreneurialTeam."Advancesin

IntelligentSystemsandComputingTechnologyforEducationandLearning

92

136(2012):221-26.Print.Heath,Joseph."MethodologicalIndividualism."Ed.EdwardN.Zalta.TheStanford

EncyclopediaofPhilosophyFall2015(2013).TheMetaphysicsResearchLab.Web.22Nov.2014.

Hodgson,Geoffrey."MeaningsofMethodologicalIndividualism."200714.2(2007):

211-26.Print.Hofherr,Peter,andRandallWestgren."TheMicrofoundationsofCollective

Entrepreneurship."SpecialWorkshopoftheStrategicManagementSocietyonMicrofoundations.Copenhagen,Denmark.13June2014.Lecture.

Kim,SungHo,"MaxWeber",TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(Fall2012

Edition),EdwardN.Zalta(ed.),URL=<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/weber/>.

Lichtenstein,BenyaminB.,KevinJ.Dooley,andG.t.Lumpkin."MeasuringEmergence

intheDynamicsofNewVentureCreation."JournalofBusinessVenturing21:153-75.Print.

Lichtenstein,BenyaminB.,NancyM.Carter,KevinJ.Dooley,andWilliamB.Gartner.

"ComplexityDynamicsofNascentEntrepreneurship."JournalofBusinessVenturing22(2007):236-61.ScienceDirect.ElsevierInc.Web.13Mar.2015.

List,Christian,andPhilipPettit."GroupAgencyandSupervenience."TheSouthern

JournalofPhilosophy:85-105.Print.List,Christian,andPhilipPettit.GroupAgency:ThePossibility,Design,andStatusof

CorporateAgents.Oxford:OxfordUP,2011.Print.McKelvey,Bill."TowardaComplexityScienceofEntrepreneurship."Journalof

BusinessVenturing19(2004):313-41.Print.McPherson,Miller,LynnSmith-Lovin,andJamesMCook."BirdsOfAFeather:

HomophilyInSocialNetworks."AnnualReviewofSociology27(2001):415-44.Print.

Miscevic,Nenad."ExplainingCollectiveIntentionality."AmericanJournalof

EconomicsandSociologyAmJEconomics&amp;Sociology62.1(2003):257-67.Print.

Ostrom,Elinor.GoverningtheCommons:TheEvolutionofInstitutionsforCollective

Action.CambridgeUP,1990.Print.

93

Oyserman,Daphna,HeatherM.Coon,andMarkusKemmelmeier."RethinkingIndividualismandCollectivism:EvaluationofTheoreticalAssumptionsandMeta-analyses."PsychologicalBulletin(2002):3-72.Print.

Poteete,AmyR.,andMarcoA.Janssen.WorkingTogether:CollectiveAction,the

Commons,andMultipleMethodsinPractice.Princeton,2011.Print.Railsback,StevenF.,andVolkerGrimm.Agent-basedandIndividual-basedModeling:

APracticalIntroduction.Princeton:PrincetonUP,2012.Print.Redlich,Fritz.TheMoldingofAmericanBanking:MenandIdeas.NewYork:Hafner,

1951.Print.Reich,Robert."EntrepreneurshipReconsidered:TheTeamasHero."May-June

19871987.Print.Roth,AbrahamS."SharedAgency."Ed.EdwardN.Zalta.StanfordEncyclopediaof

PhilosophySpring2011(2011).TheMetaphysicsResearchLab.Web.1Nov.2014.

Ruef,Martin.TheEntrepreneurialGroupSocialIdentities,Relations,andCollective

Action.Princeton:PrincetonUP,2010.Print.Schumpeter,JosephA.,andRedversOpie.TheTheoryofEconomicDevelopment;an

InquiryintoProfits,Capital,Credit,Interest,andtheBusinessCycle,.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUP,1934.Print.

Schumpeter,JosephA.Capitalism,Socialism,andDemocracy.3ded.NewYork:

Harper,1950.Print.Schumpeter,JosephA.HistoryofEconomicAnalysis;.NewYork:OxfordUP,1954.

Print.Schweikard,David,andHansBernhardSchmid."CollectiveIntentionality."Ed.

EdwardN.Zalta.TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophySummer2013Edition.StanfordUniversity.Web.15Jan.2015.

Searle,J.R."SocialOntology:SomeBasicPrinciples."AnthropologicalTheory6.12

(2006):12-29.Sage.Web.22Nov.2014.Tuomela,Raimo."ActionsbyCollectives."PhilosophicalPerspectives3.Philosophyof

MindandActionTheory(1989):471-96.Print.Tuomela,Raimo."IntentionalSingleandJointAction."PhilesStudPhilosophical

Studies:AnInternationalJournalforPhilosophyintheAnalyticTradition62.3(1991):235-62.Springer.Web.22Nov.2015.

94

Tuomela,Raimo.SocialOntology:CollectiveIntentionalityandGroupAgents.New

York,NY:OxfordUP,2013.Print.Tuominen,H.J.,S.Goel,I.Jussila,andN.Rantanen."CollectiveEntrepreneurship:

TowardsaProcessModel."AcademyofManagementProceedings1(2014):14988.Print.

Udehn,Lars.MethodologicalIndividualism:Background,History,andMeaning.

London:Routledge,2001.Print.Weber,Max.TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism.[Student'sed.New

York:Scribner,1958.Print.Weber,Max,andLutzKaelber.TheHistoryofCommercialPartnershipsintheMiddle

Ages.Lanham,Md.:Rowman&Littlefield,2003.Print.Wilensky,Uri,andWilliamRand.AnIntroductiontoAgent-BasedModeling:Modeling

Natural,Social,andEngineeredComplexSystemswithNetLogo.Cambridge:MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,2015.Print.

Zajac,EdwardJ.,andCyrusP.Olsen."FromTransactionCostToTransactionalValue

Analysis:ImplicationsForTheStudyOfInterorganizationalStrategies*."JournalofManagementStudies30.1(1993):131-45.Print.